June 16, 1897.] 



Garden and Forest. 



233 



beginning all over the country — true forestry will develop 

 and progress be made. 



But what is true forestry ? In Germany and France true 

 forest management was formerly considered to be the mak- 

 ing use of the forests without diminishing the growing 

 stock, the quantity of wood and timber cut and removed 

 from the various parts of the forest during a year or a 

 period of years being kept equal to the increment over the 

 entire forest area.* 



Experience in this country as well as abroad has shown 

 that private landowners are likely to slaughter their forests 

 in order to gain quick returns with larger immediate profits. 

 If the father does not act thus, his son or his grandson 

 assuredly will. Few men are so rich as not to feel the need 

 of ready money once in a while ; and few are so constant in 

 resolution as not to take capital out of one business in order 

 to invest it in another, when there is a prospect of larger 

 immediate profits. Now, it is easy enough to take capital 

 out of a forest- clad area ; but it is difficult to put it back — 

 that is, to restore the forest growth. Rarely will a land- 

 owner enjoy so long a life as to be able to fell trees of his 

 own planting. And even were it otherwise, few people 

 care to invest money in a venture which will make no 

 return for scores of years, accumulating interest in such a 

 manner that dividends cannot be separated from the origi- 

 nal capital — a venture which is constantly endangered by 

 fire and lawlessness, and which constantly swallows up 

 money in the shape of taxes. Thus, well-stocked forests 

 owned by private individuals are sure to be cut over more 

 rapidly than they are reproduced ; and poorly stocked forests, 

 or areas deprived of their forest covers, when owned by 

 private individuals, will scarcely ever be improved or 

 planted anew. 



However, forests may continue to exist even in the hands 

 of private individuals with proper laws. This is the case in 

 Austria, Switzerland, France and Germany. In the last- 

 named country about one-half of the forest area is owned 

 by private individuals. A large number of the owners, 

 however, are not allowed to dispose of their forests, the 

 property being entailed. In these cases the family is, in 

 fact, the owner of the forest estate, and one or more mem- 

 bers of it, carefully watched by the eyes of the law and by 

 the other members of the family, enjoy the benefit of using 

 the products of the forest within the limits of its produc- 

 tiveness. They are not allowed to cut more than its 

 normal growth — that is, its annual increment. It has hap- 

 pened repeatedly that a family has brought suit against 

 the member in possession, charging him with overcutting 

 the forests. History has taught that entailed forest prop- 

 erty admits of a proper and even a conservative forest 

 management. 



Owners of woodland in the Old Country who are inde- 

 pendent of their families, as a rule, own but small areas, 

 on an average certainly not more than a hundred acres. 

 On forest lands of this extent forest management to furnish 

 annual returns is scarcely feasible, and here again human 

 nature would lead to the ruin of the forest if not checked 

 by strictly enforced laws. Of course, owners cannot be 

 hindered from cutting their crops as soon as they deem 

 them ripe for the axe ; more than that, they are even allowed 

 to remove the litter from the ground, thus exhausting grad- 

 ually the productiveness of the land. But they are pre- 

 vented from changing woodland into farm or pasture ; they 

 are compelled after a clear cutting to plant the area within 

 a few years ; they are obliged to share pro area in the pay- 

 ment of a forest guard, whose duty it is to protect the forest 

 from theft, from fire and from damage by cattle, game and 

 insects ; and the laws of inheritance do not admit of the 

 splitting up of woodlands into fragments smaller than, say, 

 two acres. It goes without saying that all private owners 

 of woodland have been and are opposed to such measures 

 and laws. The revolution of 1848 in Baden was an out- 

 burst of this opposition. Even to-day no European legis- 



* Bulletin No. 5 of the United States Division of Forestry, entitled "What is 

 Forestry ? " 



lature is without an organized opposition to the heavy 

 burden of the forest laws. The great majority of the voters, 

 however, realize the necessity for such measures — the 

 necessity of restraining individuals or classes with a view 

 to the protection and benefit of the people as a whole. In 

 short, history has proved for Europe that private forests 

 cannot be maintained in proper condition and productiveness 

 unless they are either entailed or administered under strict 

 legal restraint. 



In this country the principle of individual freedom will 

 long prevent the passing of laws similar to the forest laws 

 of Europe. Entailed forest property is still an impossi- 

 bility. Thus, we might be led to believe that the American 

 forests are hopelessly lost to true forestry, but they are not. 

 The definition of the term " true forest management " given 

 above, as stated, was formerly the ruling one. Since 1S70, 

 however, a bold opposition has arisen which puts the finan- 

 cial or economic side of forestry to the front. The economic 

 definition reads: "True forest management is that which 

 yields the greatest money returns." In fact, since 1870, 

 German and French foresters have become Americanized. 

 They have more or less abandoned the vexation of leaving 

 large amounts of capital, bearing a low interest, invested 

 in the production of timber trees. Generally speaking, 

 forests should be cut at the time when their annual 

 increment (increase of value of stumpage) no longer 

 affords an adequate interest on the capital which the 

 stumpage represents. The truth of this principle of forestry 

 is leading at the present moment to a considerable reduc- 

 tion of the growing stock of trees in Germany, Austria, 

 Switzerland and France. Of course, this reduction cannot 

 be carried through at once, for that would overstock the 

 European market with lumber. However, the forester's 

 aim is to have that amount of capital, and that amount 

 only, invested in the forests which will yield the highest 

 interest on the capital invested. If, for instance, a grow- 

 ing stock worth $200,000 allows of an annual net revenue 

 of $6,000, while with the growing stock reduced to a value 

 of $100,000 the yield would be $4,000 annually, the gradual 

 reduction would be considered advisable. The entire 

 matter is so plain and simple that one might be at a loss 

 to understand why this main principle of forestry was 

 scarcely discovered before 1870, and is not yet recognized 

 by many European foresters. It would lead me too far to 

 explain this fact at length. 



There are some considerations, however, which diminish 

 the influence of this principle on general practice. The 

 financial principle neglects altogether the fact of the indi- 

 rect utility of the forests in their influence upon tempera- 

 ture, water-supply, health, etc. Neither does it take into 

 consideration the duty of the state to provide for the 

 timber-supply and lumber industry of the next generation. 

 In other words, it does not hold as good with state forestry 

 as it does with private forestry. Furthermore, the financial 

 principle is greatly influenced by circumstances which are 

 hardly capable of economic expression. Such are fluctua- 

 tions in the value of stumpage and lumber, possible legis- 

 lation affecting the customs or dealing with reforestation 

 or forest fires, the constant decrease of interest on capital 

 all over the world, going hand in hand with an increase in 

 civilization, and a legion of similar considerations. 



Biltmore, N. C. C. A. Schenck. 



The California Orchards. 



THE fruit crop of California is again below the average, 

 owing to frosts in some districts and to hot dry winds 

 in others. A few valleys report larger crops than usual, 

 and single orchards are in some cases well laden, though 

 surrounded by others that have no fruit. The following 

 notes are from personal observation and the reports of 

 correspondents : 



Almonds are much below the average, but in a few dis- 

 tricts show a large crop. Apricots are generally excellent, 

 except in Sacramento, Kern ami parts of Ventura counties. 



