PUBLIC CONTROL OF PRIVATE FORESTS IN NORWAY 501 



the necessary technical education to handle the work properly. As a 

 result the inspectors are most often only ordinary forest workers or 

 some of the district's smaller forest owners. Mr. Smitt further be- 

 lieves that the law is weak in not excepting from the operation of the 

 law forests under complete professional management, as was done in 

 the law of July 20, 1893. The present law, on tlie other hand, makes 

 all private forests subject to the control of the inspector of county 

 forester concerned. These are often less capable of handling the for- 

 ests properly than the men employed by the private owners, since 

 many of the best foresters in the country are now in private employ. 



Still another weakness is in the provision exempting from the gen- 

 eral provisions of the law of June 7, 1916, forests for which special 

 regulations have been prepared by local communities. While this 

 makes it possible for the communities to adopt more drastic regula- 

 tions for the handling of private forests than those contained in the 

 law of 1916, and to except forests under professional management, it 

 does not compel them to do so, and as the law now stands it is entirely 

 possible for them to adopt less effective regulations. 



Mr. Smitt does not regard either the Swedish or the Norwegian law 

 as at present satisfactory or up-to-date. The Norwegian law, how- 

 ever, has the advantage that to a certain degree it protects the 

 mountain forests, which the Swedish law does not do. The latter 

 enjoins only the duty of reforestation, but every one knows how dififi- 

 cult it is to secure the carrying out of cultural measures high in the 

 mountains. 



In spite of its shortcomings, the Norwegian law is far in advance 

 of anything that has been adopted, or even seriously considered, in 

 this country in the way of public control of private forests. Yet the 

 reasons for exercising such control are fully as strong in this country 

 as in Norway. The legislation was passed in that country for the obvi- 

 ous reason that forests, with their annual production of about $50,000.- 

 000 — exceeded only by the production of agricultural crops — consti- 

 tute a resource that the community cannot afiford to neglect. It is. 

 therefore, accepted practically without question that it would be folly 

 for the community to allow a resource of such importance to be de- 

 stroyed or even seriously misused. Forest owners are said to be 

 among the first to agree to this point of view, but usually believe that 

 they are already handling their forests in as satisfactory a manner as 

 possible under existing conditions. Is not the case almost precisely 

 similar in this country? The need for the conservation of the for- 

 ests as one of our basic resources is recognized by practically every one. 



