A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 1005 



that optional regulation under the quid pro quo principle of existing 

 laws is not contributing very much toward the solution of our forest 

 problem. 



PUBLIC CONTROL OVER PRIVATE FORESTS IN OTHER 



COUNTRIES 



Except for earlier restrictions on hunting, there was very little 

 public interference with the management of private forests in Europe 

 until early in the sixteenth century. At that time wood was still 

 the principal building material and the universal fuel. Populations 

 and industries were growing and with them the necessity for adequate 

 timber supplies. Long-distance transportation of wood was possible 

 only by water. The accessible forests in many regions were becoming 

 badly depleted. It was natural, therefore, that governments should 

 feel concerned over the prospects of a timber shortage and should 

 take steps to forestall it. Between 1500 and 1789 several of them, 

 including France, most of the German States, and Russia, under- 

 took to prevent further destruction of the privately owned as well 

 as the public forests. Many of the forest ordinances of this period 

 forbade owners to clear their forests or even to cut timber without 

 permission of the authorities, and in some instances it was required 

 that government foresters mark the timber before cutting. 



These laws were not always strictly enforced, and finally, under 

 the influence of the French Revolution and the doctrines of Adam 

 Smith, practically all of them were repealed or fell into disuse. For 

 several decades thereafter, owners were allowed to manage their 

 forests practically without restriction. Devastation was acceler- 

 ated, but the development of railroad and other transportation, 

 the increasing use of coal, and the growth of international trade 

 made the danger of a timber famine seem remote. 



It was not long, however, before widespread devastation of forests 

 was seen to have other results of even greater public concern than the 

 shortage of a useful commodity. Disastrous floods in many European 

 countries, accompanied by great property damage and loss of life, 

 were attributed to the destruction of the mountain forests. Mainte- 

 nance of the protective function of the forests, rather than the pre- 

 vention of a timber shortage, was put forth as a reason for state 

 restriction on the management of private forests. Most of the restric- 

 tive legislation during the past century had this as its principal object. 

 France incorporated such restrictions in her Forest Code of 1827, 

 Austria and Bavaria followed in 1852, Prussia in 1875, Italy in 1877, 

 Wurttemberg in 1879, Russia in 1888, Norway in 1893, Sweden in 

 1903, and Spain in 1908. In 1874, following a series of flood disasters, 

 the Federal Government of Switzerland was given authority to super- 

 vise the management of mountain forests. In Japan, heavy flood 

 damages extending over several years led to the adoption in 1882 of 

 legislation restricting the use of forests. 2 



In most countries these laws applied only to a comparatively smal 

 proportion of the privately owned forests. There was little or no 

 control over the remainder until after 1900. Even in Germany before 



2 Fernow, B. E. f A Brief History of Forestry. 506 p. Cambridge, Mass., 1911. 

 Adam, Forstgeschichte, ch. XVII in Handbuch der Forstwissenschaft, ed. 4, bd. 4. Tubingen, 



