EUROPEAN FOREST POLICIES. 211 



clearing can mostly take place oiily by permission of the State authorities, and is usually discoun- 

 tenanced except for good reasons (too much woods on agricultural soil). 



With reference to 5.6 per cent of communal forest property, this is the only control which is of 

 a fiscal nature. The rest is more or less closely influenced in the character of its management, 

 either by control of its technicalities or else by direct management and administration on the part 

 of the Government. 



Technical control makes it necessary that the plans of management be submitted to the 

 Government for sanction, and that proper officers or managers be employed who are inspected by 

 Government foresters. This is the most general system, under which 49.4: per cent of communal 

 forests are managed (as well in Austria and Switzerland), giving greatest latitude and yet securing 

 conservative management. To facilitate the management of smaller areas several properties may 

 be combined under one manager, or else a neighboring government or private forest manager 

 may be employed to look after the technical management. 



Where direct management by the State exists, the State performs the management by its own 

 agents with only advisory power of the communal authorities, a system under which 45 per cent 

 of the communal forests are managed (also in Austria and France). 



In Prussia this system exists only in a few localities, but it is since 1876 provided as penalty 

 for improper management or attempts to avoid the State control. 



This system curtails, to be sure, communal liberty and possibly financial results to some 

 extent, but it has proved itself the most satisfactory from the standpoint of conservative forest 

 management and in the interest of present and future welfare of the communities. Its extension 

 is planned both in Prussia and Bavaria. 



Sometimes the State contributes toward the cost of the management on the ground that 

 it is carried on in the interests of the whole commonwealth. A voluntary cooperation of the 

 communities with the State in regard to forest protection by the State forest guards is in 

 vogue in Wurttemberg, and also in France. Institute forests are usually under similar control as 

 the communities. 



The control of private forests is extremely varying. A direct State control of some kind is 

 exercised over only 20.7 per cent of the private forest, or 14.6 per cent of the total area, mostly 

 in southern and middle Germany, while 70.3 per cent of the private property, or 34.5 per cent of 

 the total forest area, is entirely without control, a condition existing in Prussia and Saxony. 



As far as the large land owners are concerned, this has mostly been of no detriment, as they 

 are usually taking advantage of rational management; but the small peasant holdings show the 

 bad effects of this liberty quite frequently in the devastated condition of the woods and waste 

 places. As a recent writer puts it: "The freedom of private forest ownership has in Prussia led 

 not only to forest dismemberment and devastation, but often to change of forest into field. On 

 good soils the result is something permanently better; on medium and poor soils the result has 

 been that agriculture, after the fertility stored up by the forest has been exhausted, has become 

 unprofitable. These soils are now utterly ruined and must be reforested as waste lands. 



Keed, avarice, speculation, and penury were developed into forest destruction when in the 

 beginning of this century the individualistic theories led to an abandonment of the control 

 hitherto existing, and it was found out that the principle so salutary in agriculture and other 

 industries was a fateful error in forestry. 



Where control of private forests exists it takes various forms: 



(1) Prohibition to clear permanently or at least necessity to ask permission exists in Wurttem- 

 berg, Baden, and partially in Bavaria. (Protection of adjoiners.) 



(2) Enforced reforestation within a given time after removal of the old growth and occasionally 

 on open ground where public safety requires. 



(3) Prohibition of devastation or deterioration a vague and (indefinable provision. 



(4) Definite prescription as to the manner of cutting (especially on sand dunes, river 

 courses, etc.). 



(5) Enforced employment of qualified personnel. 



In addition to all these measures of restriction, control and police, and enforcement, there 



