A Brief History of Forestry.

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., 4o, 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.