A Brief History of Forestry. / In Europe, the United States and Other Countries

by B. E. Fernow

III. Development in the Nineteenth Century.

The last hundred years or so has seen in Germany the development of fully established forest policies and the complete organization of stable forest administrations, based upon thorough and careful recognition of the principles of forest management and intensive application of silvicultural methods.

1. Changes in Property Conditions.

The change in forest treatment from that prevailing during the previous period was mainly due to the change in property conditions, and especially to the establishment of state forests. This change was largely the result of the revolutionary movements at the beginning of the new century which brought about changes in state organizations. In Prussia, the princely forest property had been declared state domain in 1713, but elsewhere, the public domain had been considered the property of the princes in their capacity as head of the country, as domanium, outside of their personal private property (Chatullgüter). The income from this domanium was in part liable to be applied to the expenses of the court and of the administration of the realm, to some extent alleviating the burdens of taxation. This property arose from a variety of relations which have been discussed at length in the foregoing chapters. It was derived mainly from feudal properties, fiefs of vassalage and fiefs of official position, secularized church property and other forfeited property, division of mark forests, and from allodial possessions of the family. Gradually, by agreement with the landed estates, it was understood that this property could not be disposed of or dissipated by the prince, and was inherited by the eldest son together with the princely dignity, being an attribute of his position in the state. In the reconstruction period of 1806 to 1815, during and after the Napoleonic wars, many of the small princes lost their seigniorage (Landeshoheit ipso jure), and with the loss of the princely dignity, the obligation of carrying the expense of court and administration naturally falling away, these properties became in most cases purely individual property of the former princes.

Not, however, until the revolutionary movements of 1848 and even later, was this divorce of the state idea from that of the person of the prince everywhere accomplished, nor was it carried through without many bickerings and quarrels between the princes and the representatives of the people, who claimed this domanium for the state. In the larger states, all this domanial property was finally declared state lands, while in the smaller principalities a partition of the land between the princes and the state took place, or else a relation was established by which a part of the revenue resulting from the state lands was secured to the princes.

An increase of the State’s property came also during the first decade of the century through the abolishment of cloisters and secularization of church property generally, the lands of both Protestant and Catholic church institutions being taken by the State.

Curiously enough, at the same time that the idea of state forest was being realized, the changes in economic thought which brought the principle of individualism to the fore gave rise to a movement to sell the state properties. This movement was inspired by French doctrines, whose influence was at the time very strong, by the teachings of Adam Smith who held that the state is not fit to conduct business, and by the hope that in private ownership an improvement in forest conditions would be more readily realized. These ideas by themselves would, probably, not have led to the adoption of a policy of sale if it had not been for the need for cash which, as a result of the French wars, was felt everywhere during the first years of the decade. The sale of this property seemed to provide a ready means for States to secure funds.

In Prussia, after the collapse of 1806, this measure was widely discussed, and eventually, in 1810 to 1813, repeatedly instructions for the sale of state forest property were issued. There were to be excluded from such sales only large complexes of forest, those on the sea coast, sand dunes and river fronts, where the protection of the forest cover was needed, and those which it was desirable to maintain for the use of important industrial establishments. Only the accession of Hartig (1811), as chief of the forest administration which was a branch of the Treasury department, prevented the execution of this dismemberment. It was due to him that the difference in character between farm and forest property began to be recognized. Although, after 1820, sales of forest property took place, they were never a fiscal measure, but were made either for the purpose of rounding off existing state forest property or paying off servitudes, or else in order to turn over agricultural soil to farm use. At present everywhere in Germany state properties are on the increase.

The property conditions of the communal forests naturally changed also with the political changes of the 19th century, when existing communities were made part of the large political machine and changed from economic and social to modern political municipalities. The ownership conditions, however, were not simplified, but as before, remained extremely varied.

Of the Mark forest but a very small portion remains to-day. The majority of it had been finally divided among the Märker in the first decade of the century, and the few remaining parts became independent of the political organization and now exist merely in the form of appurtenances to certain farm property known as Genossenwald (association forests). In addition to the variety of communal ownerships existing in the preceding period, some new communal properties originated from the granting of land in the settlement and dissolution of servitudes, whereby an undivided property (Interessentenwald) in which sometimes even the state retains an interest, came into existence.

The municipal property of the cities had become either the property of the entire community or of that part which constituted the real citizenship, or at least of a certain class of citizens of the municipality.

The incumbrances which had grown up with regard to forest property under the name of servitudes and which so much retarded the development of better forest management continued into this period, and although through the influences of the French revolution a desire had been stimulated to get rid of all curtailments of property, some have persisted to this day. Indeed, for a time an increase of these servitudes took place, due to the carelessness of forest officials in keeping unjustified use of the forest in check, when ancient usage of these rights of user was claimed and new servitudes were established.

In Bavaria, it became at last necessary (1852) to positively forbid the further establishment of new servitudes or rights of user. Laws having in view the dissolution or buying out of these rights were issued in Bavaria in 1805, and in Prussia in 1821, giving the right to forest owners whose properties were so encumbered, to call for a division of interests; but as at first the only way to settlement was by exchange for definite parcels of forest property, the progress in the abolishment of these rights was slow, until money exchange was permitted (as in Saxony, 1832). At the present time, the state forest administrations have mostly got rid of these servitudes, or at least have progressed so far in their regulation that they are now rarely impediments to forest management. These peaceable adjustments of the rights of user constitute the last act of freeing property socially and economically.

2. Forest Conditions.

In spite of the sporadic efforts which had been made to bring about the recuperation of forest areas during the 18th century, the conditions of the forest at the beginning of the new century were most pitiable; the division of the Mark, by which the peasants became individual owners, profited little, and led to devastation rather than to improving the condition of the property. In addition, export trade in wood had become brisk, and the financial depression, a result of the French wars, led to increased exploitations, which, with the improvement in means of transportation, progressed to the more distant forest areas, and enlarged the waste area. Especially in the more densely populated parts of the country, the deforested area widened, and large wastes with poor young growth increased in all directions, in the same manner as now in the United States. The alarmists had good cause for renewing their cries, and, around the year 1800, a considerable literature sprung up on the subject of the threatened timber famine.

It is interesting to note that at that time the Catalpa played a role, at least on paper, as it does in our own day, being recommended as the only means of staving off the timber famine. A renewed betulomania spread widely over the country. In North Germany especially, great efforts were made to replant the denuded areas and to change the coppice areas, fit only for firewood, to coniferous species, pine, etc., by which eventually a great change in the forest type from the original mixed forest to the pure forest was effected.

3. Personnel.

The great change which led to improved conditions, during the first half of the century, was pre-eminently due to the knowledge and intelligence of a group of men, six in number, competent foresters, who combined the high grade education of the Cameralists with the practitioners’ knowledge: Hartig, Cotta, Hundeshagen, Koenig, Pfeil and Heyer. These men built, to be sure, on the shoulders of their precursors of the century in which they were born, but, being placed in authoritative positions, found better opportunities for putting their teachings into practice.

The first two mentioned were older than the rest, and are usually described as the “fathers of modern forestry.” Born about a year apart, both educated at universities, they excelled in both scientific and practical directions.

Georg Ludwig Hartig (1764-1837), studied at the University of Giessen and, after having served in various functions in various parts of Southern Germany, became, in 1811, head of the Prussian forest administration. He was equally eminent as a practical man and organizer, as a writer, and as a teacher. In literary direction his work lay not so much in developing new ideas as in formulating clearly the known ones, as evidenced in his celebrated “General Rules” in silviculture.

Not less than thirty separate publications attest his assiduity. Among them stands pre-eminent “Anweisung zur Holzzucht für Foerster” (1791; 8th edition, 1818). As a teacher he began his work by establishing a masterschool (1789-1791) at Hungen, transferred to Stuttgart in 1807; and afterwards, as head of the Prussian forest administration, he lectured at the University of Berlin, continuing his lectures there, even after the forestry school at Eberswalde had been established, until his death.

He may be considered as having established on a firm basis the forest administration of Prussia; and many of the things he instituted still prevail. In organizing the service, he introduced fixed salaries, he relieved the foresters from financial responsibilities, transferring all handling of money to a separate set of officials, whereby the temptation to fraudulent practice of graft was removed, and he issued instructions for the different grades of foresters; and every part of this work was all his own. In regulating the forest area of the state he developed the volume allotment method, which, however, proved too cumbersome to be readily applied to large areas. Toward the end of his life, his work was not entirely successful, and he lost prestige in his later years.

Heinrich von Cotta (1763-1844) studied at the University of Jena, and afterwards practiced in Thuringia, where he established a master school at Zillbach (1795). In 1811, he was called to Saxony, as director of forest surveys, whither he also transferred his school, at Tharandt, which in 1816 was made a state institution and is still flourishing. In that year he was made the director of the Bureau of Forest Management. Like Hartig, he was eminent in the three directions of practical, literary, and educational work, but he excelled Hartig in originality, developing new principles and thought. Being a good plant-physiologist and observer of nature, he developed new ideas in silviculture, especially with reference to methods of thinning, and his “Anweisung zum Waldbau,” written in the simplest, clearest and most forceful manner, forms a classic worthy of study to this day. In the field of forest management he became the inventor of the area allotment method and the originator of the highly developed Saxon forest management. As a teacher he excelled in clearness, exposition, wealth of ideas and geniality.

Of an entirely different stamp was the third of the great masters, Johann Christian Hundeshagen (1783-1834), who having studied in Heidelberg, became after some years of practice, professor of forestry at Tuebingen, in 1817, and at Giessen, 1825. He was a representative of the theoretical or philosophical side of forestry, being highly cultivated and imbued with the spirit of science. His bent was to systematize the knowledge in existence and extend it by means of exact experiments. In forest organization, he invented the well known formula method or “rational method” of regulating felling budgets and became also one of the founders of Forest Statics (1826) which he called “the doctrine of measuring forestal forces,” being thus the forerunner of modern scientific forestry.

The fourth of the group, Gottlob König (1776-1849), was a practitioner without a university education, who had enjoyed the teaching and influence of Cotta whom he succeeded in Eisenach as the head of the ducal forest administration. He also founded here a private forest school, which, in 1830, became a state institution, and is still in existence. König became noted by his contributions to the scientific, especially the mathematical side of forestry, developing forest mensuration and statics. In this latter branch he was the forerunner of Pressler and of the modern school of finance. In his “Anleitung zur Holztaxation” (1813) he gives a complete account of forest mensuration and in the part devoted to forest valuation he develops the first soil rent formula and the methods of determining the cost value of stands. His “Forest Mathematics” (1835) in which he introduces factors of form and many other new ideas was an original contribution to science.

Very different in character from these four leaders was the aggressive, sharp-witted Friedrich Wilhelm Leopold Pfeil (1783-1859), who, without a university education, and in spite of his poor knowledge of mathematics and natural history, advanced himself by native wit and genius. After a brief period of employment in private service, in the province of Silesia, he accepted the position of professor of forestry at the Berlin University, in 1821, in connection with Hartig, with whom, however, he was at sword’s point. It was at his instigation, with the assistance of von Humboldt, that the school was transferred, in 1830, to Eberswalde, Pfeil becoming its director.

While Hartig was a generalizer, Pfeil was an individualizer, free from dogma, and most suggestive; a free lance and a fighter. Critical in the extreme and prolific in his literary work, he domineered the forestry literature of the day by means of his Kritische Blaetter, a journal of much import and merit.

The youngest of the group, Karl Heyer (1797-1856), a thoroughly educated man, combined the professorial position in the University of Giessen (1835) with practical management of a forest district, but in 1834 abandoned the latter in order to devote himself entirely to literary work. He was one of the clearest and most systematic expounders, and both his Waldbau (silviculture, 1854) and his Waldertragsregelung (forest organization, 1841) are classics. The last, fifth edition of the Waldbau, appearing in 1906 in two volumes, has been brought up to date by Professor Hess. He devised one of the most rational methods of forest organization, and, imbued with the necessity of basing forest management on exact scientific inquiry, instead of on empiricism alone, he formulated instructions for forest static investigations, a subject which his son, Gustav Heyer, elaborated into a science.

4. Progress in Silviculture.

Natural regeneration continued to be the favorite method well into this period, and, for a long time, selection forest and coppice were all that was known in practice until Hartig and Cotta forced recognition of the shelterwood system.

The only way in which a transition from the generally practiced, unregulated selection forest to an intensive management was possible, with the ignorant personnel of underforesters, was to formulate into an easily intelligible prescription the necessary rules, allowing the least play to individual judgment. This was done by Hartig when he formulated his eight “General Rules” (1808) which coincided also closely with the teachings of Cotta. Since these rules represent in brief and most definitely the status of silvicultural knowledge on natural regeneration at the time, it may be desirable to translate them verbatim.

(1) “Every forest tree which is expected to propagate itself by natural regeneration must be old enough to bear good seed.

(2) “Every district or stand which is to be replaced by a thoroughly perfect stand by means of natural regeneration, must be brought into such position (density) that the soil may everywhere receive sufficient seeding.

(3) “Each compartment must be kept in such condition (density) that it cannot, before the seeding takes place, grow up to grass and weeds.

(4) “With species whose seed loses its power of germination through frost, as is the case with the oak and beech, the compartments must be given such a position (density) that the foliage which after the fall of seed covers and protects the same cannot be carried away by wind.

(5) “All stands must be given such density that the germinating plants in the same, as long as they are still tender, find sufficient protection from their mother trees against heat of the sun and against cold.

(6) “So soon as the young stand resulting from natural regeneration does not any longer require this motherly protection, it must gradually, through the careful removal of the mother trees, be accustomed to the weather, and finally must be entirely brought into the open position.

(7) “All the young growths, whether secured by natural or artificial seeding, must be freed from the accompanying less useful species and from weeds, if these in spite of all precaution threaten the better kinds.

(8) “From every young forest until it is full grown, the suppressed wood must be removed from time to time, so that the trees which are ahead or dominate may grow the better; the upper perfect crown cover, however, must not be interrupted until it is the intention to grow a new forest again in the place of the old one.”

Since these rules are applicable only in beech forests, much mischief and misconception resulted from their generalization; pure, even-aged high forests became the ideal, and the mixed forest, which was originally the most widespread condition, vanished to a large extent. This was especially unfortunate in Northern and Northeastern pine forests.

A reaction against Hartig’s generalization began about 1830, under the lead of Pfeil. He had at first agreed with Hartig, and then with equal narrowness advocated for many years a clear cutting system with artificial reforestation. Finally, however, he was not afraid to acknowledge that his early generalizations in this respect were a mistake, and that different conditions required different treatment.

In the development of the shelterwood system there was at first, under the lead of Hartig, a tendency to open up rather sharply, taking out about three-fourths of the existing stand, but gradually he became convinced that this was too much, and finally reduced the first removal to only about one-third of the stand. This was the origin of his nickname of Dunkelman. In spite of the fact that it was claimed that Cotta took the opposite view (for which he was called Lichtman), he, too, grew to favor a dark position, and, as he progressed, leaned more and more towards more careful opening up. Hartig originally recognized only three different fellings: the cutting for seed; the cutting for light; and the removal cutting. By and by, a second cut was made during the seed year, and the number of fellings to secure gradual removal were increased, so that, by 1801, this system seems to have been pretty nearly perfected to its modern conditions. The best exposition of this Femelschlagbetrieb (shelterwood system), as then developed, is to be found in Karl Heyer’s Handbook, 1854.

The method was unfortunately extended by Burgsdorf (1787) to the Northern pineries with a seventy year period of rotation. Within ten years, however, he recognized its inappropriateness, and modified it by instructions to leave only six to twelve seed trees per acre. His successor, Kropff, reduced the number of seed trees to four or five, which were to be removed within two or three years. In spite of the development of this more rational method, the practitioners under Hartig’s approval, held mainly to a dark position even for pine, much in the manner of a selection forest, which produced a poor growth of oppressed seedlings, retarding for a long time the development of the pineries.

In spruce or fir, either a pure selection forest or a strip system was employed. Attempts at a shelterwood system were made, but experience with the wind danger soon taught the lesson that this was not a proper method with shallow-rooted species. Even Hartig preferred for spruce clearing and planting, and this is still the most favored method with that species. For the deep-rooted and shade-enduring fir the shelterwood method with a long regeneration period was thoroughly established in the Black Forest, and in Württemberg by 1818.

Natural regeneration being the main method of reproduction until the beginning of the 19th century, artificial means, as is evident from the forest ordinances of Prussia and Bavaria (1812 and 1814), were usually applied only to repair fail-places, or to plant up wastes. In this artificial reforestation, with the exception of the planting of oak in pastures, sowing was almost entirely resorted to because it could be done cheaper and easier, but as the sowings were mostly made on unprepared soil and with very large amounts of seed (30 to 60 pounds per acre, now only 7 to 10 pounds), the results were not satisfactory, either because the seed did not find favorable conditions for germinating, or when germinated the stand was too dense.

Planting, if done at all, was done only with wildlings dug from the woods, and usually, following the practice of the planting of oak in pastures, with saplings: the plant material was too large for success. Nurseries, except for oak, were not known, even to Cotta in 1817; and Heyer, having to plant up several thousand acres, still relied on wildlings, two to three years old, which he took up with a ball of earth by means of his “hole spade,” a circular spade re-invented by him and much praised by others. Hartig, in 1833, still advised the use of four to five year old pine wildlings, root-pruned, but, eventually, having met with poor success, for which he was much discredited, came to the conclusion that un-pruned two-year-old plants were preferable.

The credit of having radically changed these practices belongs to Pfeil, who, entirely reversing his position, advocated for pine forest a system of clearing followed by sowing, or by planting of wildlings with a ball of earth. Then, suggesting that possibly planting without this precaution could be attempted, and pointing out the necessity of securing a satisfactory root system, he recommended, about 1830, the use of one-year-old seedlings grown in carefully prepared seed beds. While for securing these, he relied upon the simple preparation of the soil by spading, Biermans added the use of a fertilizer in the shape of the ashes of burned sod. The method of growing pine seedlings and planting them when one to three years old was further developed by Butlar (1845), who introduced the practice of dense sowing in the seed beds. He also invented an ingenious planting iron or dibble, a half cone of iron, which was thrown by the planter with great precision, first to make a hole and then to close it. This was improved by the addition of a long handle into the superior, well-known and much used Wartenberg planting dibble. At the same time (1840), Manteuffel devised the method known by his name of planting in mounds, which is especially applicable on wet soils.

It was not until 1840 that transplanting of yearling pines with naked roots became general. The widespread application of this latter system resulted in abandoning to a large extent mixed growth, and led to the establishment of pure pine forests, introducing thereby most intensively all the dangers incident to a clearing system and pure forest which are avoided by the mixed forest, namely, insects, frost and drought.

A practice of planting spruce in bunches, originally twelve to twenty plants in a bunch, had been in existence since 1780. This practice increased until 1850, and is still in use in the Harz mountains and in eastern Prussia, although the bunches have been reduced so as to contain only from three to five plants, the object of the bunching being to make sure that one or the other of the plants should live. Much discussion as to the merits of this method took place between the old masters, Cotta favoring the small bunches upon the basis of a successful plantation of his own, Hartig and Pfeil opposing it, but finally weakening. Since 1850, however, the practice of setting out single plants has become more general.

A reaction from the indiscriminate application of the shelterwood method to the hardwoods and of the clearing method to the pine set in during the last quarter of the 19th century under the lead of Burkhardt and Gayer. These advocated return to mixed forest and to natural regeneration with long periods, approaching a selection forest. Gayer especially, professor of silviculture at Munich, became the foremost apostle of this school. Yet even to this day, the principles of silvicultural treatment under the many different conditions remain unsettled. On the whole however, with the financial question assiduously brought forward, the clearing system has made most progress, and the selection system has nearly vanished, being replaced by the group method and the shelterwood system.

A number of special forms of silvicultural management applicable under special conditions have been locally developed, without, however, gaining much ground and being mainly of historical value. Among these may be mentioned Seebach’s Modified Beech Forest, which consists in opening up a beech stand so as to secure regeneration, merely to form a soil cover, leaving enough of the old stand on the ground to close up in thirty or forty years. By this treatment the large increment due to open position is secured without endangering the soil. Similarly the Storied or Two-aged High forest, was applied to the management of oak forest in mixture with beech. In a few localities also, on limited areas, a combination of forest and farming (Waldfeldbau) has been continued and elaborated, besides the more general use of coppice and coppice with standards.

According to the statistics for 1900 the following distribution of the acreage under different silvicultural methods prevailed throughout the empire:

	Deciduous Per cent.		Coniferous Per cent.
Total Forest	32.	5	67.	5
High Forest	18.	4	60.	1
Selection Forest	2.	3	7.	4
Coppice	6.	8	—
Coppice with standards	5.		—

Coniferous forest, of which 68% is pine and 30% spruce, prevails in Eastern and Middle Germany, deciduous forest, of which 20% is oak, the balance principally beech, in the West and South.

Coppice and coppice with standards are mostly in private hands as well as the coniferous selection forest, the State forests being almost entirely high forest, i.e., seed forest, other than under selection method.

Methods of Improving the Crop. The credit of having first systematically formulated the practice of thinnings under the name of Durchforstung (for the first thinning), Durchplenterung (for the later thinnings), belongs to Hartig, although the practice of such thinnings had been known and applied here and there before his time. He confined himself mainly to the removal of the undesirable species, dead and dying, suppressed and damaged trees, being especially emphatic in his advice not to interrupt the crown cover. Excepting the early weeding or improvement cuttings, these thinnings were not to begin until the fiftieth to seventieth year in the broadleaved forest, but in conifers in the twentieth to thirtieth year.

The first attempt to explain on a biological basis the process and effect of thinning was made by Späth in a special contribution (1802). Cotta, in his Silviculture, although at first agreeing with Hartig, later in his third edition (1821) changes his mind, and improves both upon the biological explanation of Späth and the practice of Hartig, pointing out that the latter came too late with his assistance, that the struggle between the individuals should be anticipated, and the thinning repeated as soon as the branches begin to die; but he also recognizes the practical difficulty of the application of this cultural measure on account of the expense. Curiously enough, he recommends severer thinnings for fuel-wood production than for timber forests.

Pfeil accentuates the necessity of treating different sites and species differently in the practice of thinnings. Hundeshagen accentuates the financial result and the fact that the culmination of the average yield is secured earlier by frequent thinnings. Heyer formulates the “golden rule:” “Early, often, moderate,” but insists that first thinning should not be made until the cost of the operation can be covered by the sale of the material. Propositions to base the philosophy and the results of thinning on experimental grounds rather than on mere opinion were made as early as 1825 to 1828, and again from 1839 to 1846, at various meetings of forestry associations, until, in 1860, Brunswick and Saxony inaugurated the first more extensive experiments in thinnings. The two representatives of forest finance, Koenig and Pressler, pointed out, in 1842 to 1859, the great significance of thinnings in a finance management as one of the most important silvicultural operations for securing the highest yield.

In spite of the advanced development of the theory of thinning, the practice has largely lagged behind, because of the impracticability of introducing intensive management. Only lately, owing to improvement in prices and the possibility of marketing the inferior material profitably enough to justify the expenditure, has it become possible to secure more generally the advantages of the cultural effect. Within the last thirty or forty years, great activity has been developed among the experiment stations in securing a true basis for the practice of thinning.

New ideas were introduced through French influence and by others independently in the latter part of the eighties, when the distinction between the final harvest crop (Fr. élite, le haut) and the nurse crop (le bas) was introduced.[4]

[4] The conception of such subdivision and the English nomenclature was independently first employed by the writer in his Report for 1887, as Chief of Forestry Division, when discussing planting plans for the prairies.

The physiological reasons for the practice of thinning upon experimental basis, were advanced by the botanists Goeppert and R. Hartig, and among foresters, the names of Kraft, Lorey, Haug, Borggreve, Wagener, and others are intimately connected with the very active discussion of the subject lately going on in the magazines. Thinnings have become such an important part of the income of forest administrations (25 to 40% of the total yield) that the prominence given to the subject is well justified, and a more modern conception of the advantages of thinnings and especially of severer thinnings is gaining ground.

The proposition, now much ventilated, of severe opening up near the end of the rotation, in order to secure an accelerated increment (Lichtungshiebe) is, however, much older; Hossfeld, in 1824, and Jäger in 1850, advocated this measure for financial reasons, while Koenig and Pressler anticipated the development of an individual tree management by pruning, and differentiation of final harvest and nurse crop, a method which is working itself out at the present time.

5. Methods of Forest Organization.

As stated before, to Hartig and Cotta belongs the credit of having applied systematically on a large scale methods of forest organization for sustained yield; Hartig having been active in Prussia since 1811, and Cotta beginning to organize the Saxon forests in the same year. The method employed by Hartig, the so-called volume allotment, had been already formulated and its foundation laid by Kregting and others (although Hartig seems to have claimed the invention). But it was reserved to Hartig to build up this method in its detail, and to formulate clearly and precisely its application, as well as to improve the practice of forest survey, calculation of increment, and the making of yield tables. His method involved a survey, a subdivision, a construction of yield tables and the formulation of working plans, in which the principle according to which the forest was to be managed during the whole rotation was laid down for each district. The rotation was determined, divided into periods, finally of twenty years, and the periodic volume yield represented by all stands was distributed through all the periods of the rotation in such a manner as to make the periodic felling budgets approximately equal; or, since the tendency to increased wood consumption was recognized, an increase of the felling budget toward the end of the rotation was considered desirable.

Cotta based his system of forest organization upon a method described by a Bavarian, Schilcher (1796); it relied primarily upon area rather than volume division. This method was later on (1817), called by him Flaechenfachwerk (area allotment). It divides the rotation into periods and allots areas for each periodic felling budget. But before this time, in 1804, Cotta had himself formulated a method of his own, which combined the area and volume method, the volume being the main basis and the area being merely used as a check. While Hartig dogmatically and persistently carried out his difficult scheme, Cotta was open-minded enough to improve his method of regulation, and by 1820, in his Anweisung zur Forst-Einrichtung und -Abschaetzung, he comes to his final position of basing the sustained yield entirely on the area allotment, using the estimate of volume simply to secure an approximately uniform felling budget. He laid particular stress on orderly procedure in the subdivision and progress of the fellings. He did not prepare an elaborate working plan binding for the entire rotation, but merely prescribed the principles of the general management, and, after 1816, he confined the formulating of felling and planting plans only to the next decade.

A similar method, making a closer combination of volume and area allotment, now known as the combined allotment, in which the area forms the main basis for distributing the felling budgets, was prescribed by Klipstein in 1833. This, also, confines the working plan to the first period of the rotation and for this period alone makes a rather careful statement of the expected volume budget; a new budget is then to be determined at the beginning of the next period. This idea of confining the budget determination to a comparatively short period is now generally accepted, the future receiving only summary consideration.

These methods of organization were the ones generally applied in practice, and are still with some modifications in practical use. About 1820, however, new theories were advanced which led to the formulation of methods based upon the idea of the normal forest. The conception of a normal forest, with a normal stock, distributed in normal age classes, so as to insure a sustained yield management, was evolved, in 1788, by an obscure anonymous official in the Tax-collector’s office of Austria, designed for assessing woods managed for sustained yield. This fertile idea, which is still the basis of forest organization in Austria, and explains better than any other method the principles involved in forest organization, did not find entrance into forestry literature in all its detail until 1811 when André compared this so-called Cameraltaxe with Hartig’s method of regulation. We find, however, that, simultaneously with the Austrian invention of this method, Paulsen (1787) proposed to determine the felling budget as a relation between normal stock and normal yield, and in his yield tables (the first of the kind, 1795), he gives the proportion of increment to normal stock in percentic relation, so that the felling budget may be either expressed as a fraction of the stock or as a per cent.; in beech forests, for instance, he determines the felling budget as 3.3% on best sites, 2.5% on medium, and 1.8% on poor sites.

Probably stimulated by André’s description, Huber (1812) developed a method and formula which may be considered the foundation of the later development by Carl Heyer (Felling budget = I + Sa - Sne).

Based upon the normal forest idea, a number of methods were elaborated which, because of their employing a mathematical formula for the determination of the felling budget, are known as formula methods; they are, indeed modified rational volume divisions.

Hundeshagen has the merit of having first clearly explained the basis of these methods, and himself developed a formula, of the correctness of which he was so convinced as to designate his method as “the rational” one. Two other formulæ were brought into the world by Koenig (1838-1851), but the credit of the most complete elaboration both of the principles of the normal forest idea and of its practical application belongs to Carl Heyer. The principles of his method are briefly: First determine upon the period of regulation during which the abnormal forest is to be brought nearer to normal conditions; the length of this period to be determined with due regard to the financial requirements or ability of the owner and to the conditions of the forest. The actual stock on hand is then determined and the total increment, based on the average increment at felling age of each stand, which will take place during this period, is added. Deducting from this total what has been calculated as the proper normal stock requisite for a sustained yield management, the balance is available for felling budgets which may be utilized in annual or periodic instalments during the period of regulation. A working plan is provided which takes care of securing an orderly progress of fellings and proper location of age classes, to be revised every ten years.

Although this is undoubtedly the most rational method yet devised, it has remained largely unused, and is found in somewhat modified application only in Austria and Baden.

An entirely new principle in the theory of forest organization was introduced, when the aim of forest management was formulated to be the highest soil rent. According to this requirement the proper harvest time of any stand, or even of any tree, was to be determined by the so-called index per cent., that is, a calculation which determines whether a stand or a tree is still producing at a proper predetermined rate, or is declining. The advocates of this principle were especially Pressler (professor of mathematics at Tharandt, 1840 to 1843) and G. Heyer, son of Carl Heyer, who based his method on his father’s formula, merely introducing values for volumes. Judeich, director of the Tharandt school, also developed in the sixties a method, based upon financial theory, which is to attain the highest rate per cent. on the capital invested in forest production. On the basis of survey and subdivision of working blocks composing a felling series, and with a rotation determined by financial calculations with interest accounts, he makes a periodic area division for determining the felling budget in general, and in addition employs the index per cent., as explained, for determining in each allotted stand the more exact time for its harvest.

While these men pleaded for a strict finance calculation, such as is properly applied to any business making financial results the main issue, the defenders of the old regime, which sought the object of forest management mainly in highest material or value production, advanced as their financial program the attainment of the highest forest rent as opposed to the highest soil rent. They neglected and derided the complicated interest calculations which have to take into consideration uncertain future developments, and were satisfied with producing a satisfactory balance, a surplus of income over expenses, no matter what interest rate on the capital involved in soil and forest growth that might represent.

At the present time these financial propositions are still mainly under heated discussion.

In actual practice, the various state forest administrations, with the exception of the Saxon one, continue to rely upon the older methods in regulating the management of their forest properties without reference to financial theories. This is largely due to momentum of the practical existence and application of these methods in earlier times and the difficulty and impracticability of a change. Just now, however, several of the State administrations are preparing to radically revise their working plans.

In Prussia, the instructions for working plans of 1819 formulated by Hartig were improved upon by his successor, Oberlandforstmeister von Reuss (1836), and these instructions formed the basis of the work of forest regulation until the end of the 19th century. It is a periodic area allotment with only a summary check by volume. The working plan is only to secure a rational location and gradation of age classes; the calculations of yields and specific rules of management are lately confined to the first period and are revised every six years.

In Saxony, Cotta’s area method was systematically developed, and, as the larger part of Saxon forests is coniferous, mainly spruce, the proper location of age classes forms a special consideration for the progress of fellings. The determination of volume and increment was left to summary estimates, and the area division became entirely superior. The original idea of Cotta that orderly procedure in the management is of more importance than the actual determination and equalization of yield still pervades the Saxon practice. Since 1860, an attempt has been made to calculate the rotation and determine the felling budget on the principle of the soil rent, at least as a corrective of the annual budget, and in general to lean towards Judeich’s stand management.

In Bavaria, after various changes, a complete allotment method of area and volume had come into vogue, in 1819; but, at the present writing (1911) an entirely new and modern re-organization has been begun, in which most modern ideas and especially much freedom of movement, even to deviation from the principle of sustained yield, is allowed.

In Württemberg, where, in 1818 to 1822, a pure volume allotment had been introduced, in 1862 to 1863 the combined allotment method was begun, the felling budget being determined in a general way for the next two or three periods, and more precisely for the first decade, without attempting more than approximate equality.

In 1898, new instructions were issued, which abandon the allotment method and restrict the yield regulation to designating felling areas for the first period.

In Baden, where the forest organization began in 1836 upon the basis of volume allotment, a change was made in 1849 to an area allotment, simplifying to a greater extent than anywhere else the calculation of the yield; finally, Heyer’s method was adopted entirely in 1869.

It appears then that the schematic allotment methods found the most general application in the earlier time of the period, being favored probably on account of their simplicity in application. The improvement in their present application over the original methods as designed by Hartig and Cotta, is that now they require no volume calculation for any long future, but are satisfied with making a sufficiently accurate calculation and provision for the proper felling budget for the present.

6. Forest Administration.

About the middle of the 18th century the recognition of the importance of forestry led to a severance of the forest and hunting interests, and it became the practice to place the direction of the former into the hands of some more or less competent man—a state forester—usually under the fiscal branch or treasury department of the general administration. Fully organized forest administrations, in the modern sense, however, could hardly be said to have existed before the end of the Napoleonic wars (1815) which had undoubtedly retarded the peaceful development of this as well as of other reforms.

The present organization of the large Prussian forest department in its present form dates from 1820, when Hartig instituted the division into provincial administrations, and differentiated them into directive, inspection and executive services. The direction of the provincial management was placed in the hands of an Oberforstmeister, with the assistance of a number of Forstmeister, who acted mainly as inspectors, each having his inspection district consisting of a number of ranges. The ranges (100,000 to 125,000 acres) were placed in charge of Oberförster or Revierförster, who with the assistance of several underforesters (Förster) conducted the practical work. At first only indifferently educated, these latter were allowed little latitude, but with improvement in their education they became by degrees more and more independent agents.

This tri-partite system of directing, inspecting and executive officers, after various changes in titles and functions, finally became practically established in all the larger German states; in some rather lately, as for instance, in Bavaria, not until 1885, and in Württemberg in 1887.

With this more stable organization, the character and the status of the personnel changed greatly: the prior right of the nobility to the higher positions, which had lasted in some States until 1848, and the practice of making connection with military service a basis for appointment were abolished, and, instead of Cameralists, educated foresters came everywhere to the head of affairs. The lower service, which had been recruited from hunters and lackeys, and which was noted for its low social, moral and pecuniary status, was improved in all directions. The change from incidentals in the way of fees, and natural instead of money emolument for the lower grade foresters, (which had been the rule, and still play a role even to date), to definite salaries, and the salutary change of methods in transacting business, which Hartig introduced, became general. With the development and improvement of forestry schools, the requirement of a higher technical education for positions in State service could be enforced. Yet only within the last twenty-five or thirty years, has the ranking position of forest officers been made adequate and equalized with that of other public officials of equal responsibility, and still later have their salaries been made adequate to modern requirement.

The central administration now lies in the hands of technical men (Oberlandforstmeister) with a council of technical deputies (Landforstmeister) all of whom have passed through all the stages of employment from that of district managers up. This central office or “division of forestry” is either attached to the department of agriculture, or to that of finance, and has entire charge of the questions of personnel, direction of forest schools, of the forest policy of the administration, and the approval of all working plans, acting in all things pertaining to the forest service as a court of last resort. The working plans are made and revised by special commissioners in each case, or, as in Saxony, under the direction of a special bureau, with the assistance of the district manager. Upon the basis of the general working plan prepared by these commissions, an annual plan is elaborated by the district managers with consultation and approval of the provincial and central administration. These plans contain a detailed statement of all the work to be done through the year, the cost of each item, and the receipts expected from each source. This annual working plan requires approval by the provincial administration, which is constituted as a deliberative council, consisting of a number of Forstmeister with an Oberforstmeister as presiding officer. The titles of these officers, to be sure, and the details of procedure vary somewhat in different states, but the system as a whole is more or less alike.

The district manager or Oberförster, now often called Forstmeister, has grown in importance and freedom of position, although his district has grown smaller (mostly not over 25,000 acres), and, being one of the best educated men in the country district, he usually holds the highest social position, although his emoluments are still moderate. He holds many offices of an honorary character, as for instance that of justice of the peace, and the position of states’ attorney or public prosecutor in all cases of infraction of the forest laws. These forest laws are still largely local, i.e., State laws, although the criminal code of the empire has somewhat unified practice.

Curiously enough, wood on the stump is still not considered property in the same sense as other things, so far as theft is concerned; the stealing of growing timber is not even called theft, the word used in the laws being Frevel (tort), and, like other infractions against forest laws, it is punished by a money fine, more or less in proportion to the value of the stolen material or the damage suffered. This money fine may be transmuted into imprisonment or forest labor, but corporal punishment, which still prevailed in the first decades of the century, has been abolished. Wood stealing was very general and rampant during the beginning of the century, but improvement in the condition of the country population and in the number and personnel of the forest officers since 1850 has now reduced it to a minimum.

Formerly, and until 1848, the administrators and even the forest owners acted at the same time as prosecutor, judge and executioner, and only in 1879, was this condition everywhere and entirely changed, and infractions against forest laws adjudged by regular courts of law, holding meetings at stated times for the prosecution of such infractions.

Nevertheless, the court proceedings in forest matters still vary from the usual court practice, providing a simpler, cheaper and more ready disposal of testimony and witnesses, and quicker retribution, which is largely rendered possible through having every forest officer under oath as a sheriff, and his statement, and perhaps the confiscated tools employed in the theft, being accepted as prima facie evidence of the infraction.

The social position of the underforesters and the forest protective service has also been improved until all charges of incompetency and immorality, which were not undeserved even until past the middle of the nineteenth century, have become reversed; the forest service being morally on as high a plane as all the departments of German administrations.

7. Forest Policy.

During the first half of the century the old conception of Forsthoheit—superior right of the princes to supervise and interfere with private property—changed into the more modern conception of the police function of the state, and, by 1850, after the revolutionary period, the seignorage of the princes had passed away. The issue of forest ordinances (the last in 1840) was replaced by the enactment of forest laws which, since the establishment of representative government, has become a function of legislatures.

The tendency to restrict the exercise of private property rights had been assailed by the theories of Laissez faire and the teachings of Adam Smith, and, as a consequence, all the restrictive mandates of the older forest ordinances had been weakened and had more of less fallen into disuse. Especially the attempts to influence prices and markets had nearly if not entirely vanished during the first decade. Only for the state forest, it was still thought desirable to predetermine wood prices, or at least keep rates low, because wood was a necessary material for the industries. This theory prevailed until, perhaps under the lead of Hundeshagen (see [above]), the propriety of securing the highest soil rent was recognized as the proper aim, when the practice of selling wood at auction in order to secure the best prices became the rule.

The regulations regarding export and import between the different States, which had been enacted under the mercantilistic teachings of the last century (see [page 52]), and the many tariffs which impeded a free exchange of commodities, lasted for a long while into the 19th century, and were not all abolished until 1865, when under the lead of Prussia, the North German Federation instituted the Zollverein (Tariff alliance) which abolished not only all tariffs between the States of the Federation, but also tariffs on wood products against the outside world. Import duties were, however, again established in 1879, and the policy of protecting the established organized forest management against competition by importations from exploiting countries has been again and again recognized as proper in the revision of tariff rates and railroad freight rates on the government railroads.

During the first decades of the century, the supply question was uppermost, and although such men as Pfeil (1816) laughed at the idea of a wood famine, there was good reason, prior to the development of railroads, of coal fields, of iron and steel manufactures, etc., for discussing with apprehension the area and condition of supply and the extent of the consumption. Nevertheless, the attitude of the state toward private property was much more influenced by the economic theories then prevalent, which taught the ideas of private liberty to which the French Revolution had given such forcible expression.

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.

---