A Brief History of Forestry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Forest Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Methods of Restriction in Forest Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Development of Forest Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Personnel

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

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

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

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

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

6. Development of Silviculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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