GEKMAN COMMENT ON FRENCH FORESTRY 485 



have to cease to play a role in human activities." This general conception was discussed 

 more in detail in the Handbook of the Paris Exposition where it is said: "The private 

 owner seldom manages broadleaves (Angiosperms) as high forest. They prefer coppice 

 and coppice with standards with short rotation periods. The conifers (Gymnosperms) 

 they use as soon as they seem available, without letting them reach that size which 

 quaUfies them as valuable economic species." The actual condition of the forests con- 

 firms these descriptions in the literature. It is also granted that as a rule the State is 

 different in the matter of management, that other working systems are chosen, and 

 that other rotation periods are employed, than is true for the private individuals. In 

 addition to the Government's high forests, characterized by large capital and long rota- 

 tion periods, there are the communal coppice with standards stands, characterized by a 

 small stock of overwood, and the extensive sprout lands of private owners. 



The question as to what influence the conditions of ownership exercise upon the condi- 

 tion and management of forests is of considerable general importance. While perhaps 

 to a lesser extent than in France, similar differences are found in all countries, even in 

 the German forest regions. Adjoining the great areas of most of the German State 

 forests in mountainous regions (Harz Mountains, Thuringian forests, Spessart, etc.), 

 and on the plains, there are often found poor forests, owned by peasants, upon essentially 

 similar soil. The causes of these differences are to be found partly in poor management. 

 By the removal of too much of the forest litter, irregular cutting, deficient superintend- 

 ence, the demands for a good condition of the forest are by no means met. The destruc- 

 tion of forests in nearly all countries is directly traceable to private ownership. But 

 even under good management (which must be assumed if questions of principles are to 

 be discussed) there are notable differences dependent upon the conditions of ownership. 

 Government forests are always more conservatively managed than those belonging to 

 private owners. 



The recognition that there are differences depending upon the conditions of ownership, 

 which make themselves felt in the condition of forests and their management, has led to 

 the assumption that there are in forestry — just as in business in general — two different 

 systems of management dependent upon the ownership of property, a system for private 

 owners which leads to short rotation periods and extensive management, and a system 

 for public owners which is characterized by long rotation periods and large forest capital. 

 Not merely the advocates of extreme socialism have inscribed upon their banners the 

 contrast between private and cooperative management, but champions, also, of a more 

 moderate economic course have had recourse to the double system mentioned, in ex- 

 plaining the differences in the condition of forests which we are discussing, and in char- 

 acterizing the resulting problems of future management. 



Diverse, however, as are the forest conditions and the objects of organization in 

 the State and private forests that is no reason for trying to establish different systems 

 of management. The causes of this diversity must be sought in other conditions. 

 They are to be found in forest history than which the history of no other branch of eco- 

 nomics has more far-reaching results. The distance of the forest from the consumer is 

 another guiding factor. The forests which are in the possession of the State are prefer- 

 ably the more remote forests, the forests located at the interior of large wooded areas of 

 mountain and plain. The greater the distance from the market, the longer does the 

 rotation period become. The financial conditions, also, have an influence upon the rota^ 

 tion period. Those owners, alone, are in a position to manage their forests on a long 

 rotation (ignoring the interest), who have sufficient means, who are independent of the 

 immediate reahzation of income from the capital, and who have a permanent interest 

 in the condition of the forest. No other owners fulfill these requirements to so great an 

 extent as the State. Finally, it must be taken into consideration that the State has, 



