PUBLIC CONTROL OF PRIVATE FORESTS IN NORWAY 



By Samuel T. Dana 

 U. S. Forest Service 



The papers by Colonel Graves and Mr. Olmsted in recent issues of 

 the JouRNAi, have focused attention on public control of private forests 

 in the United States. It is evident that from now on the problem as to 

 how to secure and make such control effective is to be a very vital 

 one, not only for the forestry profession, but for the public in general. 

 In attempting its solution, it will be helpful to bear in mind the policies 

 adopted by other countries. Among these, Norway is of special inter- 

 est in view of the fact that forest and economic conditions there are 

 not so dissimilar from those in many parts of the United States. 



Norway is commonly regarded as a well-forested country, capable of 

 exporting indefinitely large quantities of forest products. Many will, 

 therefore, be surprised to learn that more than a quarter of a century 

 ago the destruction and mismanagement of the forests had proceeded 

 to a point where the general public felt constrained to take a part in 

 prescribing how the 67 per cent of forests under private ownership 

 should be handled. On July 20, 1893, a law was passed permitting 

 local communities to adopt regulations for the preservation of protec- 

 tion forests and against the destruction of forests in general. This 

 law was repealed by the law of August 8, 1908, which modified 

 and extended the previous legislation. Failure on the part of many of 

 the local communities to take advantage of the powers granted them 

 by this law led in turn to its being amended and made more drastic by 

 the law of June 7, 19 16, which made obligatory the exercise of public 

 control over all coniferous forests for which regulations had not 

 already been adopted by the local communities. 



The principal points in the laws of August 8, 1908, and of June 7, 

 1916, which constitute the legislation under which public control of 

 private forests is now exercised in Norway, may be summarized as 

 follows :^ 



' Full translations of these laws have been made by the author and may be se- 

 cured on application to the Forester, Washington. D. C, by any one desiring to 

 examine them in detail. They are not given in full here, since they are rather 

 lengthy and many of their provisions are of no particular interest to foresters in 

 this country. 



497 



