Private forests as far as they fall under the classification of protection forests are subject to the same supervision and rules as the public forests as regards their survey, the prohibition of clearings except by permission of the Federal Government, of diminishing pasture woods, the extinguishment of rights of user, the prevention of damaging use, and assistance in establishing means of transportation. The cantonal government is obliged to insure the execution of these laws.
In addition, while the law encourages co-operative forest management of small holdings as larger units, the Bund paying for the cost of effecting such co-operation, it empowers the canton or the Bund to enforce such co-operative management of protectionforest areas in specially endangered localities as at the headwaters of torrential streams. Otherwise, in the non-protective private forests, only the prohibition of clearing except by permission of the cantonal government, the obligation of reforesting felling areas within three years, and of maintaining existing pasture woods is ordered. Wherever on private properties conversion of forest into farm or pasture is permitted (after report of the forest administration of Canton or Bund) an equivalent reforestation of other parts may be ordered. Wherever by the reforestation of bare ground protective forest areas can be created, this may be ordered, the Federal or the Cantonal government contributing towards such work; or else, if the owner prefers, he may insist upon having his ground expropriated by the Canton or other public corporation; the federal government assisting in the first case to the extent of 30 to 50% of the cost, and in establishing new protection forests to the extent of 50 to 80%.
Before 1902, under the law of 1876, some 16,000 acres had been reforested and put in order at an expense of over one million dollars, the federal government contributing just about fifty per cent. In 1910, the area of planted protection forest had grown to 25,000 acres.
Besides the various restrictions with provisions of penalties for disobedience (from $1 to $100 for each transgression) and enforced execution by cantonal government, there are a number of directions in which the Federal Government makes contributions for the purpose of encouraging conservative management.For the salaries of the cantonal higher forest officials 20 to 35 per cent. are contributed, for the higher corporation and co-operative association officials 5 to 25 per cent., for the lower forest service 5 to 20 per cent. The Federation participates to the extent of one-third in the accident insurance of forest officers; a minimum salary of the officials and also their proper education being made conditions. To secure the latter the Federation pays for teachers and demonstration material under prescribed conditions.
In 1901, the federal contributions amounted to $100,000 in all. In 1903, the total appropriation was $126,000, namely, $9,000 for the Inspector-General’s office; $26,000 towards salaries of cantonal foresters; $80,000 towards reboisement; $8,000 towards survey. The cantonal governments contributed about the same amount outside of the cost of their forest administrations. It is estimated that the budget will have to be increased by $50,000 annually for some time to come. By 1910, the federal government had altogether contributed $2 million in the 35 years towards the execution of the law, outside its administrative office.
The organization which is to carry out this forest policy is still the one which originated with the law of 1876, somewhat modified by the law of 1892, namely, a forestry division in the Department of the Interior, with one Superior Forest Inspector and three assistants.
The Cantons have their own administrations, mostly under one forester of higher grade (calledvariously Oberförster, Forstinspektor, Forstmeister, Oberforstmeister). Bern has three co-ordinate Forstinspektor. The Cantons are or are to be districted into forest circles (Forstkreise), the subdivision to be approved by the Bundesrath, and some are further subdivided into ranges (Unterförsterei). These forest districts, from 7,500 to 45,000 acres each, are to be managed by properly educated and paid foresters elected by the people. The eligibility depends upon an examination, the theoretical part of which is conducted by the forest school, the practical part, after a year’s practical work, is conducted by a commission of foresters, after completion of which the candidate becomes eligible; the election being for three years, and re-election being usual, unless there are good reasons against it.
In 1903, there were employed as administrators or managers 119 State (Cantonal) foresters and 33 Communal foresters, besides 11 Federal forest officials. In 1909, the total number had grown to 193, besides 1091 under-foresters, to whose salaries the Bund contributed. The State foresters are allowed to manage neighbouring communal properties.
The timber forest is the most general form of silvicultural management. Selection forest with 150 to 200 year rotations is practised in the Alps and in the smaller private forest areas. Shelterwood system in compartments is in use in other parts (with a rotation of 60 to 80 years in the deciduous, and 80 to 120 years in conifer forest), supplanting largely the clearingand planting system which had found favor during the middle of last century.
In corporation forests, large areas are still under coppice with standards, but will probably soon be converted into timber forest, a policy favored by cantonal instructions. Pure coppice is only rarely met, usually confined to the overflow lands and small private holdings. In some of the public forests in the French territory it is practised with a “double rotation” (furetage) according to French pattern.
Artificial means to secure complete stands in natural regenerations is favored by the cantonal regulations, but thinning operations are still mostly neglected, except where local market for inferior material makes them advisable, which is mostly in the plains country, where the annual yield from thinnings may represent 30% of the total harvest yield.
Conversion from coppice and coppice with standards into timber forest, and change from clearing systems to natural regeneration (proper for mountain forest), and from pure to mixed forest have become general provisions of the working plans.
The average cut in the State forests during four years prior to 1893 was over 64 cub. ft. p. acre, and 42 cub. ft. for the corporation forests; an average for all the public forests of round 45 cub. ft.,—not a very good showing as yet. So far, the collection of material for yield tables and for a statement of increment and stock on hand in the country at large are still insufficient, although, in 1882, Prof. Landolt estimated the annual product at little less than 500 million cubic feet, or 50 cubic feet per acre.
Only for the intensively managed city forests of Zürich and the cantonal forests of Bern are more accurate data available. In the latter, the State forests yield 50 cubic feet in the plateau country, 73 cubic feet, in the middle country, and 76 cubic feet in the Jura, while the communal forests of that canton yield 15, 66 and 56 cubic feet respectively. Prices for wood are higher in the low country than the average in Germany and have been steadily rising for the last 40 years, especially for coniferous saw material which at present brings stumpage prices of 12 to 15 cents.
Owing to these high prices the gross yield of some Swiss forests is the largest known in Europe; the city forest of Zürich, exhibiting yields of $12, and the city forest of Aarau as much as $14 per acre on the average, although in the Alps forests the gross yield sinks to $3 and $4. The more intensively managed city forests mentioned spend on their management $6 and even $7 per acre, while most of the State forests keep their expenditures within $2.50 to $3.50, and in some places down to $1.50 per acre. The net yields vary therefore for the State and communal forests of the plateau country between $3 and $6.50 for some of the city forests from $6.50 to $8 and $9.
Switzerland has long ago ceased to produce its wood requirements, and imports from 8 to 9 million dollars annually of wood and wood manufactures.
For the education of the higher forest officials the Federal government instituted a two year course at the Polytechnicum at Zürich which was founded in1885, the course being, in 1884, increased to three years. Three professors of forestry besides the faculty of the institution in fundamental and accessory branches are active here, the number of students averaging in the neighborhood of thirty-five.
Two examinations, a scientific and a practical one, the latter taken before a special commission, tests the eligibility of candidates, foreigners not excluded, for positions. For the education of the lower grade foresters, the Cantons themselves are responsible, the Bund only contributing by paying for teachers and demonstration material (about $1,250) to carry on cantonal or intercantonal forestry courses. The courses usually last from two weeks to two months, in succession or divided into spring and fall courses; they are mainly practical, and require candidates to be not less than 18 years of age and to possess a primary school education. Their number must be at least 15, and not more than 25. There have also been instituted specially conducted excursions and progressive underforesters’ courses, as well as additional scientific courses which the Bund subsidizes.
In connection with the Zürich school, forestry science and art are furthermore advanced by a well-endowed central Forest Experiment Station, with several substations and an annual budget of $10,000.
The greatest credit for the advancement of forestry and forest legislation is due to the Swiss Forestry Association (365 members in 1911), which was founded in 1843, meeting annually in various places, managed by a Committee of five elected for 3 years. This Association is subsidized by the Bund for its educationalwork.Schweizerische Zeitschrift für das Forstwesen(begun 1850) is its organ, withDr. Fankhauseras editor.
In 1898, an association of underforesters with a special organ,Der Forstwirth, came into existence (526 members in 1902), and several cantonal foresters’ associations are also active.
In the literature, which is largely in German, with some French and Italian volumes, notable works have appeared and real advances in forestry science especially with reference to management of mountain forests are due to Swiss writers.
In 1767, theSociété d’Economie de Zurichpublished a foresters’ manual, and during the first quarter of the nineteenth century,ZschokkeandKasthoferdeveloped silviculture in the Alps.Landolt, in 1860, published the results of his investigations (under the order of the Bund of 1857) into the forest conditions of the Alps, and contributed other volumes along similar lines.
He was succeeded by the now venerableDr. J. Coazas Inspector-General of the Bund (still active at 90 years of age), who also contributed to the science of mountain reboisement and in other directions. The work on the management of the City forest of Zürich by its long-time managerMeisteris classic. Under the active direction ofAnton Bühlerfor many years, the publication of (now underDr. Engler)Mittheilungen der eidgenössischen Centralanstalt für das forstliche Versuchswesen, since 1891, have become important contributions to forestry science. In the direction of wood technology the name ofL. Tetmajer, who is conducting timber tests, should be mentioned.
No complete monographic history of forestry in France is in existence, and mainly incomplete notes scattered through various volumes were at the disposal of the writer.The work which contains the largest amount of historic information isG. Huffel,Economie Forestière, 3 volumes, 1904-1907, pp. 422, 484, 510, perhaps the most ambitious work in the French language, which has been largely followed in the account here given. It is a collection of ten studies, historical data being interspersed throughout the three volumes, the third volume containing one study entirely historical.L. F. A. Maury,Les forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France, 1867, 501 pp. is mainly descriptive, but full of interesting historic data and detail up to the revolutionary period.Jules Clavé,Etudes sur l’économie forestière, 1862, 377 pp., 12o, while mainly a propagandist essay, rehearses to some extent the history of forest practice, policies, etc., and gives a good insight into conditions at that time.Die forstlichen Verhältnisse Frankreichs, by Dr.A. v. Seckendorff, 1879, pp. 228, furnishes a few historical notes.Three English publications byJohn Croumbie Brown,Pine Plantations in France,Reboisement in France, 1876;French Forest Ordinance of 1669, 1882, are profuse and not entirely accurate, but give hints of historic development.Ch. Guyot,L’enseignement forestier en France, 1898, 398 pp., gives an insight into the development of forestry education and a complete history of the school at Nancy, and throws much light on other developments.Code de la législation forestière,parPuton, contains all the legislation having reference to forests.An article onL’idée forestière dans l’histoire, byL. F. Tessier, in Revue des eaux et forêts, 1905, Jan., Feb., gives on 26 pages an interesting brief survey of the history of forest policy in France.Forestry in France, byF. Bailey, in theIndian Forester, 1886, 61 pp., describes well conditions at that time.
No complete monographic history of forestry in France is in existence, and mainly incomplete notes scattered through various volumes were at the disposal of the writer.
The work which contains the largest amount of historic information isG. Huffel,Economie Forestière, 3 volumes, 1904-1907, pp. 422, 484, 510, perhaps the most ambitious work in the French language, which has been largely followed in the account here given. It is a collection of ten studies, historical data being interspersed throughout the three volumes, the third volume containing one study entirely historical.
L. F. A. Maury,Les forêts de la Gaule et de l’ancienne France, 1867, 501 pp. is mainly descriptive, but full of interesting historic data and detail up to the revolutionary period.
Jules Clavé,Etudes sur l’économie forestière, 1862, 377 pp., 12o, while mainly a propagandist essay, rehearses to some extent the history of forest practice, policies, etc., and gives a good insight into conditions at that time.
Die forstlichen Verhältnisse Frankreichs, by Dr.A. v. Seckendorff, 1879, pp. 228, furnishes a few historical notes.
Three English publications byJohn Croumbie Brown,Pine Plantations in France,Reboisement in France, 1876;French Forest Ordinance of 1669, 1882, are profuse and not entirely accurate, but give hints of historic development.
Ch. Guyot,L’enseignement forestier en France, 1898, 398 pp., gives an insight into the development of forestry education and a complete history of the school at Nancy, and throws much light on other developments.
Code de la législation forestière,parPuton, contains all the legislation having reference to forests.
An article onL’idée forestière dans l’histoire, byL. F. Tessier, in Revue des eaux et forêts, 1905, Jan., Feb., gives on 26 pages an interesting brief survey of the history of forest policy in France.
Forestry in France, byF. Bailey, in theIndian Forester, 1886, 61 pp., describes well conditions at that time.
France is one of the countries in which forestry has been practised for a long time and forestry practice has been almost as highly developed as in the preceding Teutonic countries.
Germany’s neighbor to the West has evolved, however, forest policies and practices which are different in some respects from those of Germany,although the early history of forestry in France was largely analogous to that of Germany. Indeed, until the end of the ninth century, the two countries being undivided, the same usages existed more or less in both, except that in the Gallic country Roman influence left a stronger imprint, Gallia having been long under the dominion of Rome.
The fact that France has for nearly a thousand years been a unit, while Germany has until recently been split up into many independent principalities, did much for uniform, albeit less ambitious, development in forestry matters.
Most of the forest policy as it exists to-day was inaugurated during the monarchical regime, which came to an end in 1871. Since that year, a republican form of government, with an assembly of 584, a senate of 300 members, under a President elected by the legislature for seven years, has been in existence.
The country is principally a plain, mostly below 1200 feet in altitude, sloping to the north and west; the mountain ranges (Pyrenées, Alps, Jura, Vosges) are confined mainly to the south and east boundaries, with secondary ranges (Cevennes, Côte d’Or, Auvergne, etc.,) in the southeast part of the country.
Of the 204,000 square miles of territory, just about 18 per cent. is wooded, which, with a population of nearly 40 million, leaves only about .6 of an acre per capita.
In its present condition this area does not produce more than one-third of the home demand, which requires on the average an import in excess over export to the amount of about 25 million dollars ($33 millionin 1902), representing over 110 million cubic feet annually, mostly workwood, while the export is of mine props and railroad ties at about half the value of the imported wood.
Since, in 1892, there were still nearly 12% (over 15 million acres) waste land, opportunity for enlargement of the forest area seems to exist. It appears that about two-thirds of this waste land is capable of bearing forest, and the existing forest area is capable of much larger production than the present; three quarters of the production being fuel wood.
The distribution of forest area is very uneven, varying from 3.5 to 56 per cent. in the various departments. Only about 20% of the area is located on the mountains, 19% in hill country, and 60% in the plains.
Six forest regions may be differentiated according to Huffel, which, however, are mainly geographical divisions: the northeast; valleys of Seine and Loire; northwest and central; southwest and Pyrenees; Mediterranean and Pre-alps; Alps.
Hardwoods, oak (40%), beech and ash, etc., occupy fully 80%, while pine—the two speciessilvestrisandmaritima, largely planted—represents the bulk of the 20% of coniferous forest area, fir, spruce and larch in the mountains forming a very small part.
Only 25% of the forest area is timber forest, 38% is coppice, and 35% coppice with standards, 2% being in process of conversion into timber forest. In the State forests alone, however, 68% are timber forest or in process of conversion to that form.
Of the 227 million acres, hardly more thanone-third, belonging to state and communities, are placed under therégime forestier, i.e., supervised and managed under working plans. The larger area is under coppice.
Three-fourths of the communal and one-sixth of the state’s timber forest is managed under selection system. Combinations of farm and forest culture (sartageandfuretage) are still quite extensively practised. The production of saw-timber under these practices is naturally small. Of the 40 cubic feet of wood per acre produced in the better class of managed state and communal properties, only 10 cubic feet are saw-logs, and if the private forests were taken into consideration, the average product, on the whole would appear still smaller, the private properties being mostly small, poorly managed, and largely coppice. Neither the owners, nor their managers and guards have, as a rule, any professional education, although the means of obtaining it exist in the schools at Nancy and Barres.
Blessed for the largest part with a most favorable climate and with rich soil of tertiary formation, the difficulties in forestry practices experienced by other, more northern and continental countries are hardly known. Hence many practices which are successful in France might in Germany prove disastrous, and such yields as some of the oak forests show, unattainable.
The greatest interest for the forester attaches to the methods of conversion of coppice into timber forest, to the extensive areas reforested during the last century, which probably exceed 3 million acres, and to the reboisement work in the mountains.
As in Austria, private ownership of forest property is largely preponderant, while state property is small.
In ancient Gaul, the Romans found the forest outside of holy groves as communal property. After the conquest, all the unseated lands, especially the extensive mountain forests, were declared either State or imperial property—more than half the whole territory—and were managed asres publicaby the administrators of public affairs. And while later, with the advent of the German hordes, property conditions shaped themselves somewhat according to their ways, the influence of the Roman law and institutions were never quite eradicated.
The country, outside of the public property, was by the Romans divided into communities, calledfundus, each placed under a Gallic seigneur (eques), a former chief, now proprietor, his tribesmen and the remnants of the earlier sessile population becoming serfs. One-third of thefunduswas handed to the serfs as their property and divided among them—the first private property—; another third was retained by the seigneur and utilized by means of the service of the serfs (corvées), but usually also burdened by rights of user on their part; and the last third became common property of the community at large. There remained, however, here and there, also, some of the original free communes or Mark (vicus), so that five different property classes were in existence.
The 5th century saw the Teutonic tribes, Suevi, Alani, Vandals and Burgundians, overwhelm theRomans, who had for 500 years kept the Gallo-Celtic population under their rule; and these were followed by Visigoths and Franks, who in turn took possession of the country. The conquerors did not drive out the Gallo-Romans, but merely quartered themselves on them under the euphemistic title of “guests,” assuming to themselves two-thirds of each estate, and leaving the remainder to their “hosts.” On these lands, undoubtedly, similar economic and social institutions were developed as in Germany. Communal ownership under these was at first developed to such an extent that the Salic laws declared all trees which were not reserved by special sign as subject to the use of all and any of the Markers. But later, as in Germany, the socialistic Mark was followed by the feudal system with its ban forests and the creation of great landed proprietors or lords.
When Clovis, the king of the Franks, in the first decade of the 6th century defeated the Visigoths and took possession of the country (seep. 29), he found communal forests of the villagers (vicus), property of seigneurs (equites), royal forests and State forests, remnants of Roman origin. The latter properties and much of the Mark forests he claimed for himself and divided two-thirds among his vassals; but the larger part of the other third became also gradually property of the nobility and church, so that, by the 12th century, only a relatively small royal property remained. Afterwards, the royal or State property grew again in various ways, as the power of the kings grew. In 1539, Francis I declared the same inalienable. But neither himself nor his successors paidheed to this self-imposed prohibition and, whenever financial troubles made it expedient, they disposed of some of their holdings.
By the ordinance of 1566 (Edit de Moulins), King Charles IX again declared the domain of the crown inalienable. Nevertheless he himself in the same year, and repeatedly afterwards, sold parts of his domain. Henry III, in 1579, renewed the ordinance of non-alienation and restored some of the last parcels to the domain by the exercise of the royal right. Himself and his successors, however, continually broke this contract, and the royal domain decreased while that of the seigneurs grew. Similarly to what happened in Germany, the church property was taken by machination or force to increase the holdings of kings or seigneurs. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the revolution in 1789, the royal domain comprised not more than 1,200,000 acres, producing a net income of 1.2 million dollars. Then followed an era of ups and downs, continuous changes of policy, increases and decreases of the property until with the inauguration of the republic, in 1871, comparative stability was secured.
In 1791, after the revolution, the royal property became national domain, and by further spoliation of church property, and otherwise, attained an area of 4,300,000 acres. In the law of 1791, a distinction was made between the inalienable domain, which comprises roads, canals, fortresses, harbors, etc., and the alienable national domain, including the forest and other property derived from royal or crown domains. To this national domain was added, bythe law of 1792, the forest property of the refugees of the revolution which was, however, later for the most part restored or indemnified. Finally, when, by the treaty of Basel (1795), the French frontier had been pushed to the Rhine, the total state forest had grown to around 6,500,000 acres, nearly one-third of the total forest area.
But, through sales and otherwise, this area had, by 1815, been reduced to 3,200,000 acres, and during the period until 1872, the area had been further again reduced to less than 2,500,000 acres. At present (1905) it comprises 2.9 million acres, or less than 12 per cent., of the total forest area, 55 per cent. of which comes from the original royal domain, 22 per cent. from original church property and 23 per cent. from recent acquisitions, secured under the laws of reboisement of mountains, sand dunes, etc.
The communal property developed largely in a similar manner as in Germany, from the Mark, and through the feudal system, with its rights of user as a result. In the twelfth century, the grandees or seigneurs were active in colonizing their domains, acquired as fiefs or otherwise, with serfs and others, giving them charters for villages with communal privileges and rights. Under this method, another kind of communal forest property grew up, by written instruments or contracts, in which limitations and reservations of rights are imposed by the seigneurs. One of the most usual conditions of the contract was the prevention of clearing or sale; at the same time a new set of rights of user, this time on the partof the seigneur, brought new complications. One of the worst features originating in the 14th century as an outgrowth of feudal relations, was “the right of the third” (triage), which gave to the seigneur, whenever he wished to exercise it, one-third of the property free of all rights of user. In this way, the communal area was diminished until, in 1667, the widespread abuse of this right led to an ordinance abolishing it. It was, however, re-established by the ordinance of 1669 in all cases where the forest had been gratuitously ceded by the seigneurs, or when the remaining two-thirds was deemed sufficient for the needs of the parish. Not until 1790-1792 was this exorbitant right finally abolished.
As an outgrowth of the revolutionary doctrine of 1793, the most radical legislation decreed presumptive ownership by the municipal corporations of all lands for which the claimant could not show a deed of purchase, excluding any title acquired as a result of feudal relations. The day of revenge of all old wrongs had come, and, appeal to justice being useless, the municipalities increased their holdings freely. Although later legislation attempted to arrest this public theft and to restitute some of the stolen property, much of the communal forest area of to-day consists of this kind of ill-gotten property.
Another method of increasing municipal properties was by exchange of territory for the rights of user. Efforts to get rid of these rights, which grew up as described and to prevent their extension were instituted much earlier than in Germany, Philip of Valois expressly forbidding such extension as early as 1346.Nevertheless they continued to grow so that, by the middle of the 18th century, they were as general and afforded as great a hindrance to forest management, as in Germany. The ordinance of 1669 also provided for the extinction of these rights, apparently without much success, and the troublesome times after 1789 increased their number. Only when the orderly regime following the reign of Napoleon gave rise to the Code Forestier (1827), was a systematic attempt for their extinguishment by the cession of territory and cash payment begun, and by this time the extinction may be considered practically concluded, at least for the state and communal property.
Private property, not seignorial, was but little developed before the 16th century; after that the frequent sales by the kings and barons gave rise to small forest owners, so that, by 1789, over 10 million acres were in such possession. During the 19th century this grew by purchase, by cessions, and by reforestation of waste lands to double that amount, not less than two million acres being added by the latter cause alone, while some decrease came from clearings.
In 1905, private holdings comprised 15 million acres or 65 per cent. of the total; the communal and institutional forests 4.8 million acres or 21 per cent., leaving for State forest 2.9 million acres, or a little over 12 per cent. of the total of 22.7 million acres. Twenty-two per cent. of state and communal property is, however, waste land, and such areas in private hands may be six times as large; there being altogether between 14 and 15 million acres of waste lands.
In the earlier times, and, indeed, into the 18th century, the most important use of the forest was in the mast from oak and beech for the pigs and pasture for the cattle, besides firewood, for which mostly the soft woods were used. This was given free from the royal domain, and the administration consisted mainly in regulating this use. The main incentive for the regulation of forest use on the part of the king were the interests of the chase.
Towards the end of the ninth century, special forest officers,forestarii, are mentioned in Charlemagne’s celebratedcapitularium, which describes in detail the administration of the public domains. These were, to be sure, only lower rank officials, working under mayors, intendants and the count (comes), who was the administrator and soon independent arbiter of the royal domain as well as of the administration of justice in general. His office early became hereditary.
The first mention of “forest masters” (maîtres des eaux et forêts) dates back to 1291, and later ordinances mention higher officials. But the credit for a full and detail organization and regulation of management belongs to Charles V, the wise Valois, in his ordinance of 1376. This organization, after various changes, by the end of the 16th century, under the reign of Henry IV, took about the following form:
Under a general superintendent of forests, titulary head of the forest service, a number ofgrands maîtres,généraux réformateurs des eaux et forêts, some 17, wereappointed by the King to watch over the conduct of themaîtresandgruyers, officers in charge of the forest districts (maîtrises). All of these officials had their deputies and lieutenants under various designations (procureur du roi,greffier,gardemarteau,sergent du garde, etc.)
A stamping hammer (kept by thegardemarteau) was employed for marking trees which defined the boundaries, or which were to be reserved in the fellings. In addition to these regular officers there were employed a great number ofcapitaines des chasseswhose functions, as the title indicates, related mainly to the chase. The function of the forestmasters did not stop with the supervision of the use of the forest and sale of wood, but included also the jurisdiction of all misdemeanors and crimes committed in the royal, and later, in all forests. They became thus gradually a privileged class of immense power. Graft and sale of offices became the order of the day. Sometimes the offices were made hereditary, and again were limited to three or four years’ tenure, in the endeavour to break up the shameful practices. For nearly three centuries all efforts at reform were failures.
The method of prescribing the rules and regulations during the 12th to 17th century was by ordinances like those issued by the German princes; the first ordinance on record being that issued by Louis VI in 1215. These ordinances usually appeared under the nameLe fait des eaux et forêts(the matters of waters and woods), curiously enough thus suggesting the relation of the two. The latter term was used exactly like that of the GermanForst, designating the reservedterritory under the ban, whileboisis used to designate actual woodland (silva).
In 1376, Charles V, in his endeavor to build up a navy against England, made reservations for naval timber and also issued the ordinance of Melun, a general forest code, the provisions of which lasted largely until the reform of 1669. In 1402, the many ordinances, often contradictory were codified under one text, and another codification was made under Francis I in 1515.
By the middle of the 17th century the devastation of forests had progressed so far, and the abuses in the management of the royal domain had become so evident that Louis XIV’s great minister,Colbert, was induced to make the historical remark “France will perish for lack of woods.” Again the needs of the navy was the prime incentive of the vigorous reform which he instituted after a most searching investigation. The result was the celebrated forest ordinance of 1669. For this purpose he appointed, in 1662, a commission which not only investigated conditions but was clothed with power to reform the abuses which it might discover. For this work he selected four trusted men outside of the forest service, to whom later more were added, and gave them the aid of technical advisers, among whomFroudoirseems to have been most prominent. Colbert himself gave close attention to this work of reform. As the first act, the commission recommended the ceasing of all cutting in the royal forests, and, after deliberation and consultation with interested parties through eight years, the final law was enacted, a masterpiece whose principles andprescriptions to an extent have persisted into the 19th century. The commission from time to time made reports, giving their findings in detail, and these form a most interesting record of conditions prevailing at that time. As one of the historians (Joubain) puts it, “the commissioners did not recoil before long hours of inspection nor high influence, they neither hesitated to declare against, nor prosecute, great and small alike, nor to pronounce a most serious sentence.” A thorough cleaning up was done and a complete reorganization secured.
By this ordinance, three special courts of adjudication in matters pertaining to the forests were established, with special officers whose duties were carefully defined, namely the courts of theGruries, of theMaîtrisesand theTables de Marbre. The first named, lower grade courts took cognizance of the lesser offences, abuses, wastes and malversations, disputes in regard to fishing or chase, and murders arising out of these;gruriesbeing the woods belonging to individuals in which the jurisdiction and the profit from such jurisdiction belonged to the king, or at least to the seigneurs. The courts of the maîtrise referred to the forest territory placed under administration of themaîtres particuliers(Forstmeister), and were established near the many royal forests as courts of appeal in forest matters. A final appeal could be made to thetables de marbre(courts of the marble table), which also decided on the more weighty questions of proprietorship by whatever term held, and especially civil and criminal cases relating to theeaux et forêts; the wrong doings in the discharge of officialduties (abus), contraventions to the orders and regulations, misdemeanors or depredations (délit); and all kinds of fraud not included under those cited (malversations).
The whole country was divided into 18 arrondissements ofgrandes-maîtrises des eaux et forêtsand these were divided into 134maîtrises, each under amaître particulier, with alieutenant, agarde-marteau, agarde général, twoarpenteursand a number ofgardes. A financial branch for the handling of moneys, and the judicial branch represented by the three courts described above, completed the organization, which lasted until the revolution, albeit some details were changed soon after its enactment, and the offices became again purchaseable and hereditary.
The sale of royal forests was again forbidden, penalties being provided for the eventual purchaser. Theft and incendiarism were severely punished, and specific rules of management were established.
Clearings could only be made by permission even on the part of private owners. The methods of sale and harvest were determined. The prescriptions of older ordinances were renewed to the effect that at least 13 to 16 seed trees (baliveaux) per acre in the coppice, and 8 seed trees in timber forest, were to be reserved in all forests without exception. Private owners were not to cut these seed trees before they were 40 years old in the coppice, and 120 years in the timber forest, while in the public and church forests these seed trees were treated like reserves. Similarly, the prescription that no woods were to be cut before10 years of age was revived from former ordinances, the time later (1787) being increased for public forests to 25 years. Also the obligation to keep one-fourth of the forest in reserve, which Charles IX had decreed in 1560, was renewed for the public forests (those belonging to corporations and other public institutions). For the fir forests of the mountains, which had become important as furnishers of ship masts, special regulations were issued, and the mast timber reserved for the crown.
There was lively opposition to the enforcement of these prescriptions, especially where they interfered with property rights, nevertheless they persisted until the changes brought about by the revolution of 1789.
Certain prescriptions, as for instance the exclusion of sheepherding were never enforced, and this practice continues even to-day in certain sections.
As a result of the reform, however, the revenues from the royal forests trebled in 20 years.
During the 18th century, several famines occurred and led to the encouragement of extending farm operations at the expense of the forest, notably in the sixties, when among other similar efforts some 200 families returning from Canada after the English conquest were colonized in the forests of Poitou. At that time, also the “declaration” of 1766 exempted those who cleared land for farm purposes for 15 years from all taxes. As a result of this invitation some 750,000 acres were cleared, and the practice of clearing for farm use continued until the middle of the 19th century. In this way, by inconsiderately exposingsoil which would not everywhere be found adapted to farm use, wastes naturally existing were greatly increased.
The revolution brought with it sudden and disastrous changes. The law of 1791 abolished not only the jurisdiction of themaîtrises, but removed all restraint, and thereby inaugurated widespread destruction and devastation of forest property against which legislative attempts of the republican government were entirely powerless. Not only did the peasants take advantage of the disorder, and the municipalities cut their reserves without hindrance but extraordinary fellings in the state forests were necessitated by the needs of the navy and the exchequer. In 1801, after various previous attempts at organization, Napoleon reorganized the service, with five administrators, 30 conservators, 200 inspectors and 8,600 inferior officers. At that time, it appears that the revenue from the public forest domain amounted to $6,000,000, a sum justifying such elaborate organization. But otherwise the methods of Colbert’s ordinance were revived. Devastation, however, continued.
Incompetence in the service, was again introduced when in 1811 half the number of officials was recruited from superannuated army officers. In 1817, the whole forest service was abolished, and the properties placed in the hands of the fiscal agents of the government without any technical knowledge. The old order of things was, however, re-established in 1820, and soon after the final organization which has lasted to date was effected.
In 1822, a commission composed of foresters was instituted to revise the ordinance of 1669, which, here and there modified, had continued to be valid, except during the revolutionary period. The result of the work of this commission was theCode Forestier(1829) which is the law of the present day. In it, principles are laid down under which the state, communal and other public forests are to be managed.
All forests submitted to therégime forestier, namely, the state and communal forests and those belonging to public institutions, are entirely managed by the state forest administration, the communities or other public forest owners paying for the service not to exceed 9 cents per acre, or 5 per cent. of the revenue. All jurisdiction and execution of forestry laws is in the hands of the officials of the Forest Administration. The foresters of the state have the exclusive responsibility of making and executing working plans, without interference by the municipalities after the plans have once been submitted and approved by them. The corporations have not even the right to appoint their own guards, all such being appointed by the prefects of the departments upon recommendation by the forest department.
The fellings, usually performed by the purchaser, (the wood being sold on the stump), are supervised most rigorously, making even the smallest deviations from the conditions of the contract sale, which otherwise would only entail the payment of damage, punishable by fine; and the responsibility for any trespasswhich may occur on the land reaches 250 yards beyond the limits of the purchaser’s territory, unless he gives proper warning and tries to find out the perpetrators of the same. Legal proceedings are brought before the courts of correction, and are greatly simplified, as is customary in Germany.
The public forests may not be sold, mortgaged or divided, and the product can be sold only through state foresters. As in the olden times, one-quarter of the stands in the timber forests, and one-fourth of the felling budget in the coppice is placed in reserve for urgent or unforeseen needs.
In addition to these and other restrictions which refer to thepublicforests, there are prescriptions which apply toallwoods in general. All foresters employed, even on private properties, have sheriff’s power. Walking in the woods with axe, saw and wagon outside of the public roads which pass through them, is forbidden; the making of fires is forbidden; the making of fire lines, 20 yards wide, between private forests can be enforced by either owner, and railroads, along their rights of way, are required to make such. By special law of 1893, the setting of fires even within 200 yards of a wood is forbidden in certain regions, and the punishment of infractions of these laws is very severe.
The rights of user are gauged by the administration according to the possible yield, even in private forests, and are surrounded by many other restrictions; the wood falling under such rights of user is cut and delivered by the forest agents, and the rights can be forcibly extinguished by exchange of territory.
The supervision of the communal forests which had, indeed, existed since the 16th century was by no means an easy task. The opposition to it which had always existed and was, in earlier times, justified by the incompetence and graft of the officials, continued even after this justification of it had ceased. Thanks to the tact and efficiency of the officials of the modern period, the opposition has been largely overcome, and, thanks to the progress made in enforcing these rigorous laws, their necessity has almost vanished, and, at present, relatively few infractions need to be investigated and punished. Moreover, the rigor of the original law was somewhat abated by the law of 1859.
There are, however, voices which proclaim that the supervision by the government is not as thorough as it should be, and that the conditions of the communal property have deteriorated.
While the supervision of the management of communal property is mainly based on fiscal considerations, theCode forestieralso authorizes the administration to interfere in the management of forests whose influence on the public welfare can be demonstrated.
In order to assure the possibility of such interference, every private owner who desires to clear land is required to advise the government of his purpose, when the administration can prevent such clearing, if deemed necessary to prevent landslides, erosion and torrential action, to protect watersources, sand dunes,for defensive purposes at the frontier(!), and for public health. Otherwise, the management of private forest is unhampered.
By special legislation, enacted in 1860 and 1882, however, the special cases of torrential action were taken care of in a special manner, which will be set forth infollowing pages. The reboisement law of 1882 authorizes the administration to acquire by expropriation mountain forests or mountain slopes needed for reforestation for the sake of safeguarding them and preventing torrential damage.
For Algiers, the same authorization to expropriate was extended by law of 1903 to include all such areas on which according to theCode forestierthe administration might forbid clearing, and such extension is advocated for the mother country.
As a rule the administration has been able to avoid expropriation and secure the territories by voluntary sale at less than $10 per acre.
At present, the forest service is under the Minister of Agriculture as President of the Forestry Council, with a Director-General as Vice President and technical head, and threeAdministrateurs Vérificateurs généraux, chiefs of the three bureaux into which the administration is divided, each with two chiefs of sections, Inspectors, and the necessary office staff. For purposes of the local administration the forest area is divided into 32 conservations, each under charge of aConservateurequivalent to the German Oberforstmeister. These are again subdivided intoChefferiesorInspections, two to twelve in each conservation, which are administrative units, under the supervision of Inspectors (200) and Assistant Inspectors (210). In addition, a special service for forest-organization and reboisement employs 14inspectors and some 20 assistants. The forest districts orcantonments(ranges) finally are under the direct charge ofGardes généraux(162), with the assistance ofGardes généraux stagiaires(67) and underforesters or guards (Brigadiers) (3,650); altogether a personnel of over 4,400 officials. While this is a larger force per acreage, yet the expense for personnel per acre is less than one-half that of the Prussian forest administration, and one-quarter of that in several of the other German state administrations.
In 1909, a reorganization was effected improving to some extent the salaries.
The legislation of 1909 also further strengthens State influence by placing certain private properties under the control of the Administration, and allowing the latter to undertake the management of private properties at the request of owners for a consideration.
The budget for 1911 places the total expenditure for the Forest Administration at 3 million dollars (98 cents per acre), of which 950,000 for reboisement and other improvement work. The receipts for the last five years have averaged near 7 million dollars, so that a net result of $1.60 per acre seems attained, considering the expense of reboisement as new investment.
The most noted work of the forest administration, and one for which it deserves high credit, has been that of the reclamation of waste lands, of which, in1879, it was estimated there were still 20,000,000 acres in extent. Especially the “reboisement” work in the Alpine districts, as a result of the law of 1882, has become celebrated.
The movement for recovery of waste lands dates from the beginning of the 19th century, and to-day reforestation by state, communal and private effort encouraged by legislative acts during the last sixty years, has restored well-nigh more than 3,000,000 acres of ground which had been lost to forest production.
There are four definite regions of large extent in which systematic effort in this direction has been made, namely, the sand dunes of Gascony and the Landes of Southwestern France; the sandy plains of La Sologne; the limestone wastes of Champagne; and the mountain slopes in the Vosges and Jura-Alps.
The sand dunes on the coast of France comprise around 350,000 acres; those on the coast of Gascony in Southwest France alone have an extent of nearly 250,000 acres, these being the most important and having for a long time endangered the adjoining pastures and fields. It seems that the land occupied by dunes was originally forested, and that these were created by deforestation.
As early as 1717, successful attempts at reforestation were made by the inhabitants ofLa Teste, and from that time on sporadically small plantings came into existence. But the inauguration of systematic reforestation was begun only after a notable report byBrémontier, who, in 1786, secured, as chief engineer of the department of Bordeaux, a sum of $10,000to be employed in ascertaining the possibilities of draining the Landes by means of a canal, and of fixing the dunes. As a result of this beginning, the method for their recovery having been, by 1793, experimentally determined by Brémontier, 275,000 acres of moving sand have been fixed during the last century. The revolutionary government, in 1799, created a Commission of Dunes, of which Brémontier was made president, and annual appropriation of $10,000 was made, later (in 1808) increased to $15,000. In 1817, the work was transferred to theAdministration des Ponts et Chaussées. The appropriations were increased until, in 1854, they reached $100,000 a year, and in 1865, the work being nearly finished, the dunes were handed over to the forest administration. There being still about 20,000 acres to be recovered, this was achieved in 1865, when 200,000 acres had been reforested at an expense of about $2,000,000, and an additional expense of $700,000 to organize the newly formed pine forests—Pinus maritimawas entirely used. These, at present, with their resinous products and wood are furnishing valuable material. An unfortunate policy of ceding some of these forest areas to private and communal owners, who claimed them as of ancient right, and also of sales was inaugurated just as the planting was finished, so that at present only 125,000 acres remain in the hands of the state. The returns from the sales, however, reimbursed the cost of the reboisement in excess by $140,000, so that the state really acquired for nothing, a property, now estimated to be worth $10,000,000.
A similar plantation on moving sands, of 35,000 acres, is found north of this tract.
To the eastward of this region of dunes stretch the so-calledLandes, a territory triangular in shape, containing 2,000,000 acres of shifting sands and marshes, on which a poor population of shepherds (on stilts) used to eke out a living. In 1873,Chambrelent, an engineer of the administration of bridges and roads (administration des ponts et chaussées), conceived the idea of improving this section by reforestation, and at his own expense recovered some 1,200 acres in the worst marsh by ditching and planting. The success of this plantation invited imitators, and, by 1855, the reforested area had grown to 50,000 acres. This led, in 1857, to the passage of a law ordering forestation of the parts of the land owned by the state as well as by the communities, the state at the same time undertaking the expense of building a system of roads and making the plans for forestation free of charge. The communities were allowed to sell a part of the reclaimed land in order to recover the expense, and sold some 470,000 acres for 2.7 million dollars, of which less than $300,000 were used to forest the 250,000 acres belonging to them. From 1850 to 1892, private owners imitating the government and communal work, altogether nearly 1,750,000 acres were covered with pine forest at a cost of $4.00 to $5.00 per acre, or, including the building of roads, for a total expenditure of around $10,000,000. In 1877, the value of the then recovered area was estimated at over $40,000,000, this figure being arrived at by calculating the possible net revenues of a pinery undera 75 years rotation, which was figured at $2.50 per acre, with a production of 51 cubic feet per acre and 200 quarts of resin (at $3). An estimate of recent date places the value of the recovered area at $100,000,000.
Centrally located between the valleys of the Loire and the Cher, near Orleans, lies the region ofLa Sologne, a sandy, poorly drained plain upon an impenetrable calcareous sub-soil giving rise to stagnant waters; this region too had been originally densely wooded, and was described as a paradise in early times; but from the beginning of the 17th century to the end of the 18th it was deforested, making it an unhealthy, useless waste. By 1787, 1,250,000 acres of this territory had become absolutely abandoned.
About the middle of the 19th century, a number of influential citizens constituted themselves a committee to begin its work of recovery, the Director General of Forests being authorized to assume the presidency of that committee. As a result, a canal 25 miles in length and 350 miles of road were built, and some 200,000 acres, all non-agricultural lands, were sowed and planted with Maritime and Scotch Pine, the state furnishing assistance through the forest service and otherwise. A set-back occurred during the severe winter of 1879, frost killing many of the younger plantations, which led to the substitution of the hardier Scotch Pine for the Maritime Pine in the plantings. The cost per acre set out with about 3,500 two-year old seedlings amounted to $5.00. Anestimate of the value of these plantations places it at, not less than $18,000,000, so that lands which 50 years ago, could hardly be sold for $4.00 per acre, now bring over $3.00 as an annual revenue.
In the province ofChampagne, South of Rheims, a plain of arid lime-stone wastes of an extent which in the 18th century had reached 1,750,000 acres is found. About 1807, the movement for the recovery of these wastes began; first in a small way, gaining strength by 1830 after some sporadic experiments had shown the possibility of reforestation, and to-day over 200,000 acres of coniferous forest (mainly Austrian and Scotch Pine), largely planted by private incentive, are in existence, the better acres being farmed. It is interesting to note that land which 50 years ago was often sold without measurement by distance, “as far as the cry would carry,” and rarely for more than $4.00 per acre, is to-day worth over $40.00 at a cost for planting of less than $25.00. The stumpage value of a thirty years’ growth is figured at from $50 to $100, the total forest area is valued at $10,000,000, with net revenue from the 200,000 acres at $2.00 per acre.
France is unfortunate in having within her territory, although so little mountainous, the largest proportion of the area in Europe liable to torrential action. Not less than 1,462 brooks and mountain streams have been counted as dangerous waters in the Alps, the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees mountains; or two-thirds of the torrents of Europe. An area nearly1,000,000 acres in extent, of mountain slopes, is exposed to the ravages of these waters by erosion.
Here the most forcible demonstration of the value of a forest cover in protecting watersheds was furnished by the results of the extensive forest destruction and devastation which took place especially during and following the years of the Revolution.
Long ago, in the 16th century, the local parliaments had enacted decrees against clearing in the mountains, with severe fines, confiscation and even corporal punishment, and these restrictions had been generally effective; but during the Revolutionary period all these wholesome restrictions vanished; inconsiderate exploitation by the farmers began, and the damage came so rapidly that in less than ten years after the beginning of freedom, the effect was felt. Within three years (1792), the first complaints of the result of unrestricted cutting were heard, and, by 1803, they were quite general. The brooks had changed to torrents, inundating the plains, tearing away fertile lands or silting them over with the debris carried down from the mountains. Yet in spite of these early warnings and the theoretical discussions by such men as Boussingault, Becquerel and others, the destructive work by axe, fire and over-pasturing progressed until about 8,000,000 acres of tillable land had been rendered more or less useless, and the population of 18 departments had been impoverished or reduced in number by emigration.
A young engineer,Surell, was the first to study the possibility of coping with the evil and proved in hisEtude sur les torrents, in 1841, its relation to forest cover, and the need of attacking it at the sources. The first work of recovery was tentatively begun in 1843, but the political events following did not promote its extension, until, in 1860, a special law charged the Forest Department with the mission of extinguishing the torrents. There were recognized two categories of work, the one, considered of general public interest being designated as obligatory, the other with less immediate need being facultative; the territories devastated by each river and its affluents on which the work of recovery was to be executed were known as perimeters. In the obligatory perimeters, private lands were to be acquired by the state by process of expropriation, the communal properties were to be only for a time occupied by the state and after the achievement of the recovery were to be restituted on payment of the expense of the work; or else the corporation could get rid of the debt by ceding one-half of its property to the state.
In the facultative perimeters, the state was simply to assist in the work of recovery by gratuitous distribution of seeds and plants, or even by money subventions in some cases. It appeared hard that the poor mountaineers should have to bear all the expense of the extinction of the torrents, and much complaint was heard. In response to these complaints, in 1864, a law was passed allowing the substitution of sodding instead of forest planting for at least part of the perimeters, with a view of securing pastures; but this method seems not to have been successful and was mostly not employed.
Finally, by the reboisement law of 1882, the complaints of the mountaineers were properly taken care of by placing the entire expense of the reboisement work on the state. The attitude of the mountaineers, which was at first hostile, due to the restriction of the pasture, has been overcome by the beneficial results of the work, and now the most hostile are ready to offer gratuitously their territory to the Forest Department. Wherever necessary the state has bought territory, and from year to year has increased its holdings, and continues to acquire land at the rate of 25,000 to 30,000 acres per year, the budget of 1902, for instance, containing $1,000,000 for this purpose; that of 1911, only $40,000.
Altogether the state had, up to 1900, acquired 400,000 acres, of which 218,000 have been planted, and it is estimated that about 430,000 acres more will have to be acquired. The total expense, outside of subventions to communities and private owners, up to 1900 has been over $13,000,000, of which somewhat over $5,000,000 was expended for purchases, it is estimated that round $25 to $30 million more will be needed to complete the work. Of the 1,462 torrents there were in 1893, 163 entirely controlled, and 654 begun to be “cured.” Among the former, there were 31 which 50 years ago were considered by engineers incurable. It is estimated that, with the expenditure of $600,000 per annum, the work may be finished by 1945. The names of Matthieu and Demontzey, especially the latter, are indelibly connected with this great work.
Lately, however, Briot in his classical workLesAlpes françaisescriticizes severely as improperly extravagant the large expenditures in places where the result does not warrant them, and proclaims as illusory some of the methods adopted.
Until the 16th century, whatever regulations had been issued regarding forest use were merely of administrative or police character and had nothing to do with management or silviculture, except perhaps so far as the number ofbaliveaux, reserved trees to be left, might be considered as bearing upon the subject. Theréformateurswho were from time to time appointed had to deal only with judicial questions and abuses; and usually the ordinances referred only to special forests, but in 1563, theTable de marbreof Paris issued instructions which were to serve in all forests.
A futile attempt to secure statistical knowledge of the forest domain was made, apparently with a view to regulation of the cut, by de Fleury, the chief of the forest service in 1561. In default of data from many of themaîtrises, a provisional partial order to regulate the cut was issued in 1573, which remained in force for a hundred years, and was regularly disregarded, extraordinary cuts being made without authority and with the connivance of the officers.
An ordinance of 1579 describes the deplorable condition of the forests at length, and calls for statistical data, but again without result. A number of further ordinances also made no impression upon the callous and corrupt officials of the forest service.
A first class attempt to secure more conservative forest use and to regulate the cut was made by Henry IV in instituting a commission, and, as a result of its report, issuing his general order of Rouen, in 1597, a highly interesting document giving insight into conditions and opinions of the foresters of that period. It also remained without any result whatsoever.
Repeated replacement of the higher officials had no more effect than the issuance of ordinances.
Not until Colbert’s vigorous reform in 1669 came a change in conditions.
Meanwhile, some forestry notions had been developed: a sequence of felling areas in the coppice, and hence an area division, an idea of rotation and of the exploitable age (10 to 20 years, although sometimes down to 3 and 4 years), the leaving of overwood, which became obligatory in the royal domain, and a kind of regulation of its age (40 years—too short according to one writer of the time to furnish valuable trees), and some proper considerations of its selection.
In the timber forest, the fellings proceeded by area in regular order from year to year, leaving a prescribed number of marked seed trees, at least 6 to 8 per acre, on such areas as were outside the rights of user and removed from the likelihood of depredations; the felling age being at least 100 years, under the notion that the oak, the most favored species, “grows for one hundred years, keeps vigorous but stands still for another hundred, and declines in a third hundred.” Sowing of acorns on prepared ground was also ordered in the 16th century, and perhapsoccasionally done. Young growths were sometimes protected by ditches or fences against cattle, although objections were raised against the former as impeding the chase. A diameter limit sometimes reserved all oak and beech two feet in circumference at six inches from the ground, the height of the stump. Even improvement cuttings (calledrecépages) are on record in Normandie, mainly for the purpose of cutting out softwoods and freeing the young valuable reproduction, repeated in decennial returns. Later, thinnings assumed the character of selection fellings and, indeed, received the name ofjardinage. They were continued until the time for final cut and regeneration had arrived. In the coniferous mountain forests, selection cutting, pure and simple, was the rule.
It appears, then, that quite sane notions of silviculture existed, albeit they may not have been very generally and very strictly carried out. Especially during the 16th century, the maladministration of the royal domain brought with it a decadence of the practice in the woods; the area of the coppice increased by clear cutting at the expense of the timber forest, and, by Colbert’s time, all forestry knowledge had wellnigh become forgotten.
The forest ordinance of 1669 attempted to reform not only the administrative abuses but to improve the method of exploitation hitherto practised; at least it put in writing, codified as it were, the best usage of the time. A commission of 21 was instituted to make working plans and prescribe the practice.
The prescriptions had reference both to management and silvicultural practice. A felling budget(état d’assiette) was prescribed annually by thegrand maîtrefor eachgarderie(district), and felling areas were also, sometimes, but not always, definitely located. Besides, extraordinary fellings might be ordered.
Thegarderieswere divided intotriages(now calledcantons), management classes or site classes under different rotations, and the fellings proceeded in eachtriagein sequence.
In each felling area, as had supposedly been the practice, at least 8 seed trees per acre, and generally 16, besides those under the diameter limit, were to be left—the methodà tire et aire.
Intermediary fellings—thinnings—were avoided and frowned down upon, probably because of the abuses to which they had given rise. Meanwhile their need grew more and more, especially in those places where the felling method did not produce satisfactory regeneration, and softwoods impeded the development of the better kinds. To improve the chances for valuable regeneration and to keep the softwoods down, the foresters proposed the reduction of rotations from 100 to 50 and even 40 years, and, as with each felling the number of reserve trees had to be left, the forest assumed a form resembling the coppice under standards.
In the coniferous woods of the mountains (fir), which in Colbert’s time appear almost like a new discovery to his reformers, the selection forest with a diameter limit (e.g., 6 inch at the small end of the 21-foot log) was the method most generally in vogue, and is still to a large extent the method in use, butsomewhat better regulated and modified, sometimes with improvement fellings added. In some parts, especially in Lorraine, for a time, artificial regeneration and a strip system were tried, and even a group selection with a regeneration period of probably 25 to 30 years and an exploitable age of 100 years, was practised in the 18th century.
Buffon, in 1739, proposed a treatment for the pineries to secure natural regeneration by cutting one-third to one-half, leaving 40 to 50 seed trees per acre, while Duhamel (1780) considers selection method best for larch and pine as well as fir, although pine might, like oak, be readily reproduced by sowing.
While system and orderly progress of fellings in selection forest had gradually been established, during the revolution this was largely disregarded and unconservative fellings became the order.
Guiot’s Manuel forestier, published in 1770, gives a good idea of the status of forestry at that time. It appears that for timber forest, mostly royal woods, rotations varying from 60 to 200 years, for coppice from 10 to 20 years, were in use on the royal domain; that fellings were regulated according to species, soil quality and the most advantageous yield. To facilitate regeneration, a superficial culture of the soil is also advocated.
The prescription of Colbert’s ordinance to leave a certain number of seed trees, no matter for what species or conditions of soil or climate had as early as 1520 been pointed out as faulty by one of the grandmasters,Tristan de Rostaing, who had recommended a method of successive fellings. This prescription, applied pretty nearly uniformly as a matter of law, removed from the officials all spirit of initiative and desire or requirement of improving upon it. No knowledge beyond that of the law was required of them, hence no development of silvicultural methods resulted during the 17th and 18th century. The seed trees left on the felling areas grew into undesirable and branchy “wolves,” injuring the aftergrowth, or else were thrown by the wind or died, and many of the areas became undesirable brush. Not until the first quarter of the 19th century was a change in this method proposed through men who imported new ideas from Germany.
When the inefficiency of theméthode à tire et airewas recognized, the only remedy appeared to lie in a clearing system with artificial reforestation (recommended byRéaumurandDuhamel); and, indeed, the ordinance of 1669 recognized the probable necessity of filling up fail places in that manner. Yet the success of the plantings in waste lands does not seem to have brought about much extension of this method to the felling areas. As late as 1862, Clavé, complaining of the conditions of silviculture in France, and of the ignorance regarding it, refers to the clearing system asméthode allemande, the German method. The shelterwood system,la méthode du réensemencement, which was introduced in theory from Germany by Lorentz in 1827, was hardly applied until the middle of the century. Indeed, the promulgation of this superior method cost Lorentz his position in 1839,and other officers suffered similarly for this “German propaganda.” (seep. 242)[7]