524 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



to the State forests in the production of timber of large size. This 

 was due to the use of shorter rotations which are financially more 

 profitable than the longer rotations applied to State forests, to the 

 tendency to increase immediate returns by premature cutting, and to 

 the frequent lack of continuity in ownership, all of which are factors 

 that operate in France in spite of the high level of stumpage values. 

 The Communal forests were on the whole somewhat more conserva- 

 tively and skillfully managed than the private forests, but more subject 

 to local needs and financial considerations than the State forests. For 

 the most part they enjoy the same technical supervision as the latter. 

 Their production is not far different from that of the private forests. 



At the outset of the war France lost control of the important forest 

 regions in the North that were occupied by the enemy, but during the 

 first two years the demands upon her forests that remained were not 

 extraordinary. At first practically all forest operations were stopped 

 by calling to the colors of all able-bodied lumbermen and foresters. 

 Later, as the development of trench warfare, the building of extensive 

 munition plants and depots, light railways and other appurtenances of 

 modern fighting, required timber in excess of existing stocks, men 

 were released and exploitations resumed. Almost no timber was cut 

 in the fall of 1914, and only a moderate amount in the year 191-5. In 

 1916 a much larger quantity was manufactured, the demand for military 

 purposes increasing all the time. This demand reached enormous 

 proportions in 1917 with the entry of the American Expeditionary 

 Force requiring almost wholly new equipment and housing from the 

 docks at base ports to entanglement stakes at the front lines. It con- 

 tinued unabated until the armistice was signed. 



It became obvious that to meet this demand a cut much in excess 

 of the normal yield based on the annual growth was called for. How 

 should this excess cutting be distributed? One might think that the 

 State owned forests would have had to bear the burden. This was 

 not the case. It is true that considerable pressure was brought to 

 bear by the wood services of the American, British and French armies 

 to obtain heavier cuttings in State and Communal forests, with the 

 result that cutting three to five years in advance of normal wa:s author- 

 ized, and the principle recognized that in the more difficult and inac- 

 cessible operations, even heavier markings, anticipating ten years' yield, 

 should be allowed. However, the conservatism of the French Forest 

 Service, the reluctance to see working plans seriously deranged, and 



