IS BRITISH FORESTRY PROGRESSIVE 2 49 
next to nothing is done to them. Theoretically, there is no reason 
why the woods on a small estate should not be as well cared for as 
those on large properties. Facts and experience prove, however, 
that the smaller the acreage the more likely are they to be neglected, 
or simply treated as game-cover or ornamental woodland. 
With these facts before us, it cannot be said that the prospects 
of British estate forestry are particularly promising. We have 
had several remedies suggested of late, it is true, but none of 
them is, in my opinion, of great efficacy. The most likely are, 
perhaps, ‘education for the forester,” and ‘pecuniary loans to 
the planter.” It is a fondly cherished idea in some quarters that 
proprietors have hitherto been retarded in their efforts to improve 
their woods, and to inaugurate a better system of forestry, by 
the inefficiency of their foresters. The latter are said to be 
thoroughly practical, but lacking in scientific knowledge, and 
owners are accordingly handicapped in their efforts to improve 
their woods by the want of better trained men. This is a 
beautiful theory, but one which unfortunately vanishes when 
it comes to be analysed. That mistakes have been made in the 
past I am quite ready to admit, but it is hardly fair to put the 
whole responsibility for them upon the forester. How often are 
thousands of young trees destroyed in a few weeks by ground- 
game? How often is the forester obliged to cut into immature 
woods in order to satisfy estate requirements? And last, but not 
least, how often are his own ideas and wishes overruled by the 
powers that be in the matter of planting, thinning, and felling. 
Perhaps in all the operations of practical forestry over-thinning 
has been the great blot which has disfigured British forestry in 
the past. But the day has scarcely disappeared when a forester 
who thinned a Scots pine or spruce wood on what are now 
generally admitted to be correct principles, was regarded as 
totally incompetent, and as having ruined the plantation. 
After all, however, from whom comes this complaint of a lack 
of properly trained foresters? In all the correspondence and 
discussions which have appeared in print or taken place on the 
subject of forestry education, the names of really representative 
woodland proprietors or their representatives are rarely seen. 
Scientists, economists, nurserymen, gardeners, and foresters them- 
selves have all raised their voices in support of the various schemes 
that have been suggested, but the party for whose benefit this 
praiseworthy movement has been set on foot, whose income from 
VOL, XV. PART I. D 
