250 JOURNAL, OF FORESTRY 



private owners. There are an incredible number of small oivners, a 

 fact never before noted by English or American writers. In 1913 there 

 were 1,538,526 private forest owners^ (excluding the communes, which 

 are really groups of small joint owners). There were no less than 

 1,446,200 owners with less than 25 acres, only 82,285 owners with 

 forests of 25 to 1,235 acres, and but 742 owners of forests over 1,235 

 acres. This is of the utmost importance. It is the key to the stability 

 of France. In other countries the forests are usually in the hand's of 

 large owners; in the Republic of France the forest land, as well as 

 the agricultural land, is divided among the people. There are few 

 large estates remaining. Out of all the private forests there are only 

 79 over 2,500 acres ; in 21 departments there are none this size. In the 

 United States there are millions of farmers owning small woodlots, 

 but according to the Society of American Foresters : 



"A few men have secured vast amounts of private timber and timberlands. 

 Already 1,802 owners control more than 79,000,000 acres of the forest lands on 

 the United States. In Florida, 183 holders own more than 9,000,000 acres. In 

 Michigan over 5,000,000 acres are held by 32 owners. In Louisiana 27 holders 

 own more than 6,000,000 acres. In the Pacific Northwest, three owners have 

 more than 9,000,000 acres. And these are but typical instances." 



From the national and political standpoint, France is unquestionably 

 the gainer by having her forests in small holdings. From the standpoint 

 of forest management and the treatment of individual stands, small 

 ownership necessarily implies that each owner will cut spasmodically 

 to satisfy his needs in the village or farm. The large owner, on the 

 contrary, upon competent technical advice manages his forest as a 

 permanent business and adheres fairly well to a sustained annual yield 

 and to regulated fellings. Other things being equal, having forests 

 in small holdings benefits a nation but deteriorates the stand. Thus 

 the responsibility of large owners is emphasized. In the United States 

 they have thus far failed to live up to their responsibilities and when 

 the concentration of ownership is widely known the public will take 

 a hand in preventing the destructive logging of these large areas. 



Can these few owners afford to fight measures that are aimed at the 

 benefit of the nation? Our economic supremacy, which has been 

 emphasized by the Great War, was based not on the individual's success 

 in business but fundamentally on the natural resources which were 



2 The figures of the total number of owners, given in the official French 

 Forest Atlas of 1912, do not check with the owners under the various size 

 classes. This discrepancy cannot be explained but does not affect the conclusion. 



