Chapter III: Development in the Nineteenth Century (3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. _State Forest Administration._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. _Progress of Forest Organization._

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. _Development of Silviculture._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. _Education and Literature._

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

HUNGARY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SWITZERLAND.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. _Forest Conditions and Property Rights._

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

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

2. _Development of Forest Policy._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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