County, City, Town and School Forests 



By J. W. ToumEY Director 



a LTIlOL'CH the public ownership of forests by the 

 ZA nation and State are the most prominent features 

 ^ * in our torest policy, the ownership of forest prop- 

 erty by lesser governmental units is becoming important. 

 County forests, city forests, town forests, school forests 

 and the like seem novel to most of us, yet this kind of 

 forest ownership is wonderfully successful and is the 

 dominant ownership in some countries of Europe. Thus 

 in Switzerland about 1'i per cent of the total area of the 

 forests of the republic is owned by these lesser govern- 

 mental units and is known as communal forests. A con- 

 siderable percentage of the forests of Germany and 

 Austria are of the same kind. In fact, all the countries 

 of Europe have these three classes of public forests, 

 namely, national, State and communal, but in different 

 amounts and in varying proportions. 



Almost unknown to the general public and for the 

 most part within comparatively recent years, counties, 

 cities and towns in the United States have been acquiring 

 land through purchase or gift, which must be regarded 

 as communal forests. Although these areas have been 

 acquired for the most part for the purpose of protecting 

 the watersheds from which potable water is obtained or 

 for purposes of recreation, sometime timber reproduction 

 will join hands with water protection and recreation. 

 They are located near centers of population where in- 

 tensive forest management is possible. Our so-called 

 woodland parks, some of which are 1,000 acres or more 

 in extent should be recognized as county, city or town 

 forests and developed from the point of view of aesthetics 

 and wood production combined, as is now the case with 

 similar forests in Europe. 



Without exception publicly owned watersheds protect- 

 ing potable water supplies should be recognized also as 

 county, city or town forests, as the case may be. Their 

 organization for the production of forest products, is the 

 only important economic use which the land can serve. 

 Accepting this viewpoint, which it seems to me is the 

 only sound one, let us inquire* into the present situa- 

 tion relating to them in this country. 



The available data for an inquiry of this nature is 

 very fragmentary. Almost unknown to the public, how- 

 ever, and without propaganda to stimulate public opin- 

 ion favorable to communal forests, the acquiring of 

 lands for such purposes has gone forward with consid- 

 erable rapidity, particularly in the most populous and the 

 older settled parts of the country. Within the past year I 

 have attempted to gather what information I could re- 

 garding forest property owned by these lesser govern- 

 mental units, which under our interpretation may be 

 called communal forests. The data regarding some States 



42S 



of the Yale Forest School 

 is fairly complete, while regarding others it is ex- 

 tremely fragmentary. The following table represents the 

 conditions in several States from which I have been able 

 to obtain fairly reliable data. Conditions which parallel 

 these very likely prevail in other States, even in the States 

 listed regarding which the data is not complete. 



Area in 



