Chapter III: Development in the Nineteenth Century (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. _Forestry Science and Literature._[5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. _Means of Advancing Forestry Science._

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

There also exists an international association of forest experiment stations.

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. _Property Conditions._

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

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

2. _First Attempts at Forest Control._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. _Development of Forest Policy._

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