Germany’s neighbor to the south-east, and until 1866 a member of the German Empire or Federation, largely settled by Germans and hence swayed by German thought, developed forestry methods on much the same lines as the mother country. Yet there are differences to be found, due to difference in economic development, and there is for the United States perhaps more to be learned from Austria in the matter of introducing forestry methods, especially as lately practiced in Bosnia-Herzegovina, than from any other country, for economic conditions are in several respects alike.

The interest in the forest history of Austria lies especially in the fact that private forest property in large holdings is predominant, and that large areas are still untouched or just opened to exploitation, so that Austria is still in the list of export countries, although in some parts intensive management has been long in existence.

In the main, although movements for reform in forest use date back to the middle ages, the condition of forestry in Austria was past the middle of the 19th century still most deplorable, and in a stage of development which most of the German States had passed long before; but in the last 50 years such progress has been made that both science and practice stand nearly if not quite on the same level with those of their German neighbors.

If Germany exhibits in its different parts a great variety of development, political and economic, Austria, although long under one family of rulers (since 1526), exhibits a still greater variety due to racial, natural, and historical differences within its own borders. It is, indeed, an extraordinary and singular country, without an equal of its kind (except perhaps Turkey) in that it is not a national, but a dynastic power, composed of unrelated states or lands, with people speaking different languages, mixed races widely different in character. These were gradually aggregated under one head or ruling family, the Hapsburgs, who as Archdukes of Austria occupied the elective position of German Emperors for several generations, and after the collapse of the Empire, in 1806, retained the title and called themselves Emperors of Austria.

The Kingdom of Hungary alone (which was joined to the Hapsburg dominions by election of its people in 1526, and under new relations in 1867), with at least 50% Hungarians, is a national unit with a national language (Magyar), while all other parts have in their composition preponderatingly Slavish population, although German elements have the ascendancy more or less everywhere.

Not less than 10 different languages are spoken among the forty odd million people, of whom the Germans comprise about one-quarter, the Hungarians one-third, the balance being Slavs.

Originally, this section of the country was occupied by Germans with the German institution of the Mark, but, when the Slavish and Magyar tribes pressed in from the East, it became the meeting ground of the three races, and during the first 1,000 years after Christ the “East Mark” formed the bulwark of the German empire against the eastern invaders, who, were, in succession, the Slavs, the Huns, the Turks.

With the unexpected election of Rudolph of Hapsburg, a little known prince of small possessions, to the dignity of German Emperor, in 1272, the foundation of the Austrian Empire was laid. The Archduchy of Austria he secured by conquest in 1282, and around this nucleus all the other territories were from time to time, aggregated by the Hapsburgs through marriage, conquest, or treaty. At one time their rule extended over Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia.

The abdication of Francis II, in the year 1806, prepared the separation from Germany, although Austrian influence persisted in Germany until 1866 when, by the crushing defeat suffered at the hands of Prussia, its place and voice was permanently excluded from German councils. By arrangement with Hungary, the new dual empire of Austria-Hungary came into existence, and gave a new national life and new policies to the coalition which is to amalgamate these south-eastern territories into a homogeneous nation.

By the treaty of Berlin in 1878, this territory of 241,942 square miles with over 45 million people was further increased by the addition of the Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina with 1,250,000 inhabitants and 23,262 square miles, first merely placed under Austria’s suzerainty and administration, in 1908 incorporated as an integral part.

---

It is natural that, corresponding to this great diversity of ethnological elements and historical development, we should find a great variety of forest conditions and uneven development of forestry. While in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia the most intensive management has long been practiced, in the Carpathians of Galicia and in Hungary rough exploitation is still the rule, and in other parts large untouched forest areas still await development.

---

We can distinguish at least seven regions thus differently developed: the Northwest with Bohemia, Moravia and the remaining part of Silesia, settled the longest, and the longest under forest management; the Northeast, Galicia with the Carpathian Mountains, still largely either exploited or untouched; the Danube lands or Austria proper, with the Vienna forest and the forests connected with the saltworks in Upper Austria and Styria, under some management since the 12th and 16th centuries respectively; the Alp territory, including Tyrol and Salzburg, parts of Styria, Karinthia and Krain, much devastated long ago, and offering all the problems of the reboisement work of France; the Coast lands along the Adriatic with Dalmatia, Istria and Trieste, which, from ancient times under Venetian rule, bring with them the inheritance of a mismanaged limestone country, creating the problems of the “Karst” reforestation which has baffled the economist and forester until the present time; the two new provinces east of this region, Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose rich forest areas have only lately begun to be treated under modern conservative ideas; and finally Hungary with a great variety of conditions in itself.

The large forest per cent. (a little over 24,000,000 acres or over 32% of the land area) is due to the mountainous character of the country, the Alps occupying a large area on the west and southwest, the Carpathians stretching for 600 miles on the northeast, various mountain ranges encircling Bohemia, the Sudetes forming part of the northern frontier, and the Wiener Wald and other lower ranges being distributed over the empire and bounding the fertile valleys of the Danube and its tributaries. At least 20 per cent. is unproductive.

The climate in the northern portion of Austria is similar to that of southern Germany; in the southern portions to that of Italy, while Hungary partakes of the characteristics of a continental plains climate with low rainfall and extreme temperature ranges.

In addition to the tree species found in Germany there are of economic value four species of pine (Pinus austriaca, cembra, pinea, halepensis), two oaks (Quercus ilex and suber), and the chestnut (Castanea vesca). Conifer forest is prevailing in Austria (with 82%), deciduous forest in Hungary, mostly beech and oak (with 75%); 27% being oak in pure stands.

The following pages refer to Austria proper, Hungarian conditions being treated separately further on.

The value of the total raw product exported from the Austrian forests (some 180 million cubic feet) may be estimated at over 50 million dollars annually.

1. Property Conditions.

On the whole, property conditions developed not unsimilarly to those of Germany. There were freemen and serfs to start with, developing into barons, peasants, burghers; there were ban forests, royal domain, forests of the mark, and private properties; rights of user or servitudes and all the methods and conditions that were developed in other parts of Europe are also found here, only perhaps differing in time and rate of progress in their development.

As a result of gradual changes, the present distribution of property resulted, in which the State ownership is comparatively small, namely, in Austria proper not more than 7.3% (with 2.8 million acres of which nearly one-third is unproductive land), while private ownership represents over 58.6%. Of this, 34% is in large landed estates, among which those of the princes of Liechtenstein and of Schwarzenberg with round 350,000 acres and 290,000 acres respectively are the largest; and 25 others with from 50,000 to 230,000 acres may be named. By the middle of the 19th century, at least 75% of the forest area was in large compact properties, a guarantee for the possibility of forest management; the industrial development of the last decade has, however, led to considerable exploitation. In upper and lower Austria and in the Alpine regions small private ownership prevails. The communal forest comprises 13%, entailed forest 8%, and the rest belongs to church and other institutions. These so-called Fondsforste are in part under government administration.

2. First Attempts at Forest Control.

The oldest record of attempts at an orderly management in any part of the empire seems to date back to the 12th century, when the city forest of Vienna had been placed under management. During the 16th and 17th century this property appears to have been managed upon the basis of careful surveys and estimates. We also find a definite forest organization in the forests attached to the ducal salt mines in Styria by 1524, and the dams, canals and water works for floating timber developed by 1592 through Thomas Seeauer were the wonder of the times.

In 1524 also, Archbishop MathÆus Lang of Wellenburg issued a forest ordinance which was full of wise prescriptions, probably little heeded. A forest ordinance of 1599 refers to burning of tops and care of young growth in fellings.

Generally speaking, as in Germany proper, forest ordinances were issued from time to time, by the dukes under the theory of the Forsthoheit, applying to limited territories and attempting to regulate forest use. No uniformity existed.

The iron industry in the more northern provinces had led early to a more conservative use of forest properties for fuel, and since the mines were regal property the dukes had a special interest in their conservation.

In the Alp territory, especially in Styria, the regal right to the mines combined with the Forsthoheit led early to the reservation by the dukes of whatever forest was not fenced or owned by special grant for the use of the mines. In addition, a superior right was asserted by them in some of the private forests to all the forest produce beyond the personal requirements of the owners, for use of the mines at a small tax; and what other private property existed was burdened by innumerable rights of user. The exercise of these rights, and the warfare against irksome restrictions led to widespread illegal exploitation and devastation, which as early as the 15th century had proceeded to such an extent that in Tyrol associations for protection against the torrents were already then in existence. Yet in this province, scantily populated, with one-third of its area unproductive and one-third forested, wasteful exploitation continued until recent times.

In Krain, which was unusually well wooded, forest reservations were made for the use of the mines and furnaces in 1510 and 1515, these reservations comprising all forest lands within a given radius. The balance was mostly divided among small owners, whose unrestricted, unconservative exploitation continued into the latter half of the 19th century.

In Styria, nearly one-half wooded and one-third unproductive, a regulated management was attempted as early as 1572, and by subsequent forest ordinances of 1695, 1721 and 1767 devastation was to be checked. But the resistance of the peasants to the regulations and the inefficiency of the forest service were such that no substantial improvement resulted.

In Galicia, unusually extensive rights of user in the crown forests led to their devastation, and the attempts to regulate the exercise of these rights by ordinances in 1782 and 1802 were unsuccessful.

The forest area along the coast of the Adriatic in Istria and Dalmatia had furnished shiptimber even to the ancients. The Venetians becoming the owners of the country in the 15th century declared all forests national property, reserved for shiptimber, and placed them under management. They instituted a forest service, regulated pasturing, and forbade clearing. The oak coppice was to be cut in 8 to 12 year rotation, with standards to be left for timber, etc. A reorganization of this service with division into districts is recorded in the 16th century, when Charles V, in 1520, instituted a “forest college,” i.e., administration. But the district officers, capitani ai boschi, being underpaid, carried on a nefarious trade on their own account, and by 1775, the whole country was already ruined in spite of attempts at reform; the “Karst” problem remained unsolved; and, when Austria secured Dalmatia, in 1897, that country too was found in the same deplorable condition, the forest area, there in the hands of the peasants, having suffered by pasture and indiscriminate cutting.

It was the work of Maria Theresa to reform the administration of the various branches of government, and wholesome legislation was also extended to the forest branch by her forest ordinance of 1754, which remained in force until 1852. It relieved the private owners, who held most of the forest area, from the restrictions hitherto imposed, except in the frontier forests. These, for strategic reasons, were to be managed according to special working plans prepared by the “patriotic economic society.” The management of communal forests also was specially regulated. Otherwise the ordinance merely recommended in general terms orderly system and the stopping of abuses.

In 1771, another forest ordinance proposed to extend the same policy of private unrestricted ownership to the Karst forests, with the idea that thereby better conditions would most likely be secured; but, since here the property was not as in Bohemia in large estates but in small farmers’ hands, the result was disastrous, as we shall see later: it merely led to increased devastation.

The same result followed the increase of private peasant ownership which came with the abolishment of serfdom in 1781. In 1782, an ordinance full of wise prescriptions against wasteful practice intended for the Northwest territory sought to check the improvident forest destruction.

A further wholesome influence on private forest management was exercised by the tax assessment reform in 1788, when not only a more reasonable assessment but for the first time a difference was made in taxation of managed as opposed to unmanaged woods and the epoch-making fertile idea of the normal forest was announced (see p. 115). At the same time the hunting privileges and other burdens, hampering forest properties were abolished, and measures for the extinguishment of the rights of user enacted.

3. Development of Forest Policy.

As appears from the foregoing sketch of early attempts at forest control, no uniformity existed in the empire, each province being treated differently and the regal rights being applied differently in each case.

Originally the regular circuit or district governments had charge not only of the management of State forests but also of the forest police and the regulation of the management of communal forests. This supervision was exercised by the political administration, often without technical advisers, and the different provinces had developed this service very variably. While in some provinces no special effort was made to look after these interests, the laws remaining mainly dead letters, in others a better system prevailed. In Styria, for instance, in 1807, five forest commissioners and 20 district foresters were employed; but this organization was of short duration. A loose administration of the forest laws was most general. The movement for reform and to secure a general law for the empire controlling forest use dates from the year 1814; but, only after the political reaction of 1848, and when the severe floods of 1851 had forcibly called attention to the unsatisfactory state of things was the necessity of change recognized. In 1852, such a general law was enacted, supplanting all the forest ordinances (with minor exceptions).

This law, which in the main is still in force, distinguishes between ban forests and protective forests. The former are such as require in their management consideration of their protective value to adjoining private or State property and personal safety, e.g., to prevent landslides, snowslides, avalanches, etc. Protection forests are specially located forests which for their own continuance as well as for that of neighboring ones must be managed under special restrictions, e.g., on sand dunes, shores of waters, steep slopes. The dangers which they are to prevent being more of an indirect or hidden nature, and only produced by their mismanagement, the control also is of a more general nature, the owner being allowed to manage his property within general prescriptions, while the ban forests are protective forests of a higher order and are more strictly and more directly controlled by the authorities. The declaration of a ban forest and the prescription for the conservative management depend on the findings of a commission assisted by experts (since 1873).

The execution of the law however, being left to the political administration of the provinces, jealousies between imperial and provincial governments, and fear of resistance and ill will of forest owners prevented a strict and uniform application of the law. Hence, from time to time, we find ministerial rescripts, and special provincial legislation to secure a more energetic enforcement of the law.

At first, the reform had reference mainly to the Alp districts, which had suffered the most, and, in Tyrol, at least, an organization was created in 1856 which was to manage the State forests, supervise the management of corporation forests and exercise the forest police. Not until the years 1871-74, however, was a similar service extended to other portions of the empire, but at the end of that period the entire empire had been placed under the administration of a “forest protective service.” an organization quite distinct from the State forest administration.

In 1900, there were placed under this service nearly two million acres of protective, and somewhat over 150,000 acres of ban forests, but some 5 to 6 million acres of private or communal forest was under some other restrictive policy.

In 1888, this service consisted of 14 forest inspectors, 56 forest commissioners, 63 forest adjuncts and 80 assistants and forest guards; in addition 252 special appointees and officers of the State forest administration were doing duty in this service, so that altogether nearly 500 persons were then employed in carrying on the protective forest policy of the State. In 1910, there were 388 technical attachÉs to the provincial authorities employed, and 124 on reboisement work, while the State administration employed only 297 officials of the higher grade.

The law declares the function of this technical service to be: “to assist the political government by technical advice and observation in supervising forest protection, and in the application of the forest laws.”

In 1883, the functions of this organization were extended “to instruct and encourage forest owners in forest culture, and to manage forests designated to be so managed.” The service has been so satisfactory that, while at first much complaint against the enforcement of the regulations was heard, owners now ask constantly for its extension.

The details of the duties devolving upon this organization are found in a series of laws, applicable to different parts of the empire, which are based upon the recognition of protection forests, in which sanctioned working plans regulate the management. Forcible reforestation and employment of competent foresters in these are obligatory. Now, altogether about 60% of the Austrian forest area is managed under working plans.

A special reboisement law for the extinction of destructive torrents was the result of unusual damage by floods in Tirol and Karinthia, in 1882. The basis for this legislation was laid by a translation from the French of Demontzey’s great work on the reboisement of mountains, by v. Seckendorff in 1880, and a subsequent report by the same author in 1883. A law, similar to that of the French was enacted in 1884, for the regulation of torrential streams. A special fund for the work was created to which the interested parties are required to contribute, assisted by annual subventions from the State. The contributions of the State have averaged from 40 to 60%, of the provinces 20 to 50%, the interested parties having contributed 30% of the round five million dollars expended on this work by 1901. In 1910, the contribution to the melioration fund by the State had grown to 1.6 million dollars. At the same time, for the regulation of the lower rivers an appropriation of $1,350,000 was made, of which $400,000 was to be used for reforestation work.

This work as well as the reforestation of the Karst (see p. 173) under the laws of 1881, 1883, 1885, is carried on by the forest protective service.

On the whole, the forest policy of Austria tends toward harmony with forest owners and liberation of private property. By reduction of railroad freights, which are under government management, by abolition of export duties, by reasonable tax assessments, etc., the wood export trade (now exceeding 30 million dollars) is favored; by the extinction of rights of user under liberal laws improvement in forest management is made possible, the Emperor setting a good example by having renounced, in 1858, his superior right to forest reservations in the Alp districts.

The best exemplification of the spirit of the Austrian forest policy and of the methods of forest organization and administration is to be found in the administration of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina described in a volume published in 1905 by the veteran Austrian forester, Ludwig Dimitz.[6]

Here, the Austrian government has in the short time of 25 years succeeded in bringing orderly conditions into the forest management. Until 1878, these countries were provinces of Turkey and were placed under Austrian suzerainty as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. The Turks had already attempted a management of the forest lands, which were in their entirety claimed by the Sultan. Property conditions being entirely unclear when the Austrians assumed the administration, these questions had first to be settled by a survey. This survey resulted in showing a forest area of 6.3 million acres, 51% of the land area, of which probably all but about 1.5 million acres is private or communal property; half of the state property is fully stocked and it is estimated that about 100 million cubic feet is the annual increment.

4. State Forest Administration.

The State domain in the first half of the 19th century had been reduced by sales from nearly 10 million acres to 4.5 million acres, and to a little over 3 million acres in 1855. In that year, about one-half of this property was handed over to the National Bank to secure the State’s indebtedness of $30,000,000, and between 1860 and 1870 further sales reduced the domain to about its present size of 1.8 million acres productive forest. In 1872, however, a new policy, and the present organization were instituted.

Before 1849, the forest properties which the Crown or State owned in the various territories were not managed as a unit or in any uniform manner, but a number of separate provincial or territorial forest administrations existed which were often connected with mining administrations and were placed under the Minister of Finance. These, under the influence of the educated foresters issuing from the newly established forest school, had, to be sure, been much improved; nevertheless the Cameralists, as in Germany, were at the head of affairs and kept the technical development back until after the revolution of 1848, when the accession of Franz Joseph I brought many reforms and changes in methods of administration.

A ministry of Soilculture and Mining was created in that year, and, as a branch of it, a forest department, separated from the department of the Chase. To the head of this forest department was called a forester, Rudolf Feistmantel, who elaborated an organization. But, before much had been accomplished, the Ministry and its forest department were abolished (1853) and the forest domain again transferred to the Ministry of Finance.

Feistmantel returned in 1856 as Chief of the forest division in that Ministry, and his organization of the forest property of the State into forest districts under forest managers and into provincial “forest directions” was perfected.

Matters, however, did not thrive, and, only when public attention and indignation had been aroused by a policy of selling State property, a change of attitude took place in 1872 which led to the present organization. This places the State forest administration in the Department of Agriculture, with an “Oberlandforstmeister” and two assistants as superior officers, and the rest of the organization is also very nearly the same as that in vogue in most German States, each province having a directive service of “Oberforstmeister” with “Forstmeister” as inspectors, and “OberfÖrster” with the assistance of “Forstwarte” as executive officers. In addition a special corps of “forest engineers” and “superior forest engineers” is provided for the elaboration of working plans. Lately (1904), a re-organization of the central office provided, besides the department of administration of State and Funds forests, a department of reboisement and correction of torrents, and a department of forest policy charged with the promotion of forest culture, including the education of foresters and similar matters.

Most of the State property is located in the Alps and Carpathian mountains at an elevation above 2,000 feet, hence financial results do not make a good showing.

Since 1885 it has been the policy to add to the State forest area by purchase, and by 1898, over 350,000 acres had been added to it.

5. Progress of Forest Organization.

Since 1873, working plans according to unified principles have been prepared for most of the State property, so that, by 1898, about 82% was under regulated management.

The progress made in bringing forest areas under organized management varied greatly in the different provinces.

In northeastern Austria, the first methods of regulated management consisted, as in the neighboring territories of Germany, in a simple division into felling areas. The example of the neighbors was also followed later in the northwestern provinces, and in both regions this method was improved upon by allotment according to the propositions of Hartig and Cotta. In addition, since 1810, the method of the Austrian “Kameraltaxe” with the new and fertile idea of the “normal forest” began to be employed (see p. 115). The new method now largely employed is an area allotment checked by the normal forest formula.

---

Especially in Bohemia, most of the large baronial properties had, by 1848, been put under a regular system of management according to Saxon and Prussian precedent. The influence of the former was especially strong, and Saxon foresters were largely employed to regulate the management. Most prominent among these was Judeich, who became the Director of the Austrian forest school at Weisswasser, (afterwards of Tharandt). By 1890, over 83% of the total forest area of Bohemia capable of such management had been placed under rational working plans according to the most modern conception, and nearly the same proportion in the neighboring provinces of Moravia and Silesia.

In the Alps territory and in the Danube provinces, the regulation of forest management has not progressed with the same rapidity, partly owing to the existence of the many hampering rights of user; only here and there, are properties managed intensively. By 1890, only 23% were managed under rational working plans (40% state and 60% private and communal property), mostly regulated by a combined area and volume method.

In Styria, in the forests attached to mines, we find already in 1795 quite a remarkable effort in the matter of working plans. Such a plan by an unknown author deals with volume tables and sample area methods for determining the stock. But the fine plan was stowed away in a cupboard, and when, in 1830, forest counselor Wunderbaldinger proposed to apply a similar plan he had to wait seven years before permission for a trial was granted. He continued, however, the organization of these forests until 1848, using Hundeshagen’s “use per cent.” in the selection forest, and volume allotment for the woods managed under clearing system.

In lower Austria, the Vienna state forest of 70,000 acres had for a long time received attention; the first thorough forest survey and yield calculation being made in 1718-20, revised in 1782-86, and regulated for the shelterwood system in 1820. Within the last 50 years, the method has been changed again and again, until in 1882 the present Austrian method based on normal stock principles was applied. Since in this province 50% of the forest area is small peasant property and communal forest, which are usually managed without systematic plans, the 33% under working plans represents more than half of the area capable of such management.

In upper Austria, where the salt works are situated, the attempts at regulated management in connection with these date back to the middle of the 16th century, and, after various changes, these forest areas were, by 1888, placed under working plans of modern style. Over 50% of the forest area of this province is so regulated. One of the most modern working plans based upon Pressler’s soil rent theory and a most intensive silviculture, is that of the Baron Mayr-Melnhof on his estate Kogl.

These details are merely brought forward to illustrate the great variation both in the progress of development and in the present conditions in different parts of the empire, similar differences being found in other portions. Suffice it to say that in round numbers about fifteen hundred thousand acres are managed under more or less intensive working plans, and of the balance seven million acres are farmers’ woodlots on which only silvicultural treatment is necessary.

6. Development of Silviculture.

The necessity for conservative forest use and reforestation did not arise as early in Austria as it did in Germany. It was not until the middle of the 19th century that this necessity became apparent in most of the provinces, when German experiences in silviculture could be readily utilized.

In Bohemia, the clearing system with artificial reforestation, mostly by seed, had been introduced at the beginning of the century for the conifer forests, planting as a rule being resorted to only in fail places. For this planting, wildlings were mostly used. In the broad-leaved forest, the selection system, and to some extent the shelterwood method, were largely followed. The strip system was also much employed, and, as the felling areas were often made too large, undue increase of undesirable softwoods resulted. During the last 50 years, silvicultural theory and practice developed very much on the same lines as in Germany, more intensively in the densely populated and more accessible regions, and less so in the more distant and thinly settled mountain districts.

The most noted work of reforestation which has occupied Austrian foresters for the last forty years or more is that of the “Karst,” a name applied to the waste lands in the mountain and hill country of Istria, Trieste, Dalmatia, Montenegro and adjacent territory skirting the Adriatic Sea. It is a dry limestone country of some 600,000 acres in extent, stony and rough, and overdrained. Originally well forested with conifers and hardwoods, it had furnished for ages ship timber and other wood supplies to the Venetians. Through reckless cutting, burning and pasturing by the small farmers it had become almost entirely denuded, natural reforestation being prevented by these practices combined with the dryness of the soil, intensified by the deforestation.

For centuries, countless laws were passed to stop the progress of devastation, but without effect.

The first attempt at planting was made by the city of Trieste in 1842, and found some imitators, but with meager result.

In 1865, the Austrian government, acting upon representations of the Forestry Association, undertook to encourage and assist private landowners in reforesting their Karst lands by remitting taxes on reforested lands for a period of years, by technical advice, and by assistance with plant material and money.

By this move, so much land was withdrawn from pasture and taxation that opposition was aroused among the cattle owners, which led to additional legislation during the years 1882 to 1887, and finally to the creation of a commission charged to select the lands which in the interest of the country required reforestation, and empowered to enforce this improvement within a given time, the State expropriating the lands of objecting owners. At the same time, the Commission brought about the division of pasture lands which were held in communal ownership.

By 1909, of the 75,000 acres selected by the Commission as of immediate interest 15,000 acres had been planted, mostly with Austrian Pine, at an average cost of $8 to $16 per acre, the cost including stone enclosures for the plantations, to protect them against cattle and fire, and the repairs, which sometimes equalled the original expense. In addition, some 50,000 acres of natural growth were brought into productive condition merely by protection.

While this activity refers to the northern portion of the coast region, the Karst of Dalmatia farther south, being oak country, was mainly recuperated by protective measures. Here, in 1873, the pasturing of goats was forbidden on areas of over one million acres in extent which were found capable of reforestation. In 1876, the partition of communal holdings was ordered, and portions were designated for forest use, to be planted. As a result of these measures, nearly 400,000 acres have been recuperated.

7. Education and Literature.

The first forest schools in Austria were established through private effort, namely one in 1800 in Bohemia by Prince Schwarzenberg, and another one in Moravia by Prince Liechtenstein, these two being the largest forest owners in Austria. In 1805, another private forest school was opened in Bohemia, and at the same time the state institute near Vienna came into existence. This was, in 1813, transferred to Mariabrunn, and, after various changes in the character of the teaching, was, in 1867, raised to the dignity of an academy with a three years’ course. In 1875, it was transferred to the Hochschule fÜr Bodenkultur at Vienna, an agricultural school, which had been instituted in 1872, intended to give the higher scientific education in both forestry and agriculture by a three years’ course. The course was, in 1905, increased to four years. During the years from 1875 to 1904, over 2,600 students in forestry alone had attended this excellent school at which over 70 professors and instructors are employed.

---

For the lower grades of foresters, schools were from time to time opened in addition to the private ones first mentioned. Such so-called “middle schools,” were founded at Eulenberg (1852), Weisswasser (1855) transferred to Reichstadt, and Lemberg (1874), at which latter the course is two years in the Polish language, and one at Bruck (1900), where the course is three years. At present, there are five middle schools in operation.

For the education of guards, three Forstwart schools were instituted in 1881 and 1883, one each for Tirol, Styria and Galicia, where, in an eleven months’ course, 15 forest guards at each receive instruction. In addition there are five schools of silviculture where the course is one year. Besides these schools, courses in forestry of shorter duration are given at three other institutions.

Besides these schools, the promotion of forestry science is, as in Germany, secured by forest experiment stations, which came into existence as a result of the earlier deliberations of the German foresters. The first proposition to establish such a station was submitted in 1868, but its establishment was delayed until 1875, when such a station was instituted at Vienna in connection with the school there. The results of the investigations are published from year to year and have enriched the forestry literature in the German language with many important contributions.

---

A very active association life exists in Austria, largely due to the influence of the many large private forest owners. Curiously enough, the first attempt at forming a society of foresters in Bohemia was suppressed by the authorities, probably for fear of revolutionary tendencies, and the effort simply resulted in a literary or reading association to obviate the need of private purchase of books. Not until 1848, the very year of the revolution, did the Bohemian forestry association become a fact, and, under the leadership of the large forest owners among the nobility, it has become the strongest in Austria, issuing a bi-monthly association journal from the beginning. Another strong local association which dates its beginning as a society for agriculture back to 1770, is the Moravian-Silesian Forestry Association, which segregated from the mother society in 1850, first as a section, and, having by 1858, attained a membership of 1,000, it constituted itself as a separate association in 1886. Besides these, many smaller ones exist in Austria. In 1852, a general Austrian forestry association was founded, which, in 1854, began the publication of a quarterly journal and held sessions in various parts of the empire; but, by and by, the interest seemed to flag, the attendance at the meetings became smaller and smaller, and finally the association was abandoned after a rival, the Austrian Forestry Congress, had been organized in 1874, which later became the Oesterreichische Reichs-Forstverein.

In Galicia and in Bukowina, the foresters meet as a section of the Society for Soil Culture. The same method of forming forestry sections of the agricultural societies is followed in other parts of the empire, and at least a dozen or more other local foresters’ associations might be mentioned, in which owners of forest properties are as fully represented as professional foresters; and their activity is not only to be found in literary labors, but also in practical work. In addition to the meetings of these local societies, representative congresses have met annually at Vienna since 1876, and have become powerful agents for improving legislation and practice.

---

Although, as was natural, owing to the difference in conditions the forestry literature in Austria began much later than that of Germany, a very active progress is noticeable since the middle of the last century, and the Austrians are vying successfully with the Germans in this direction. The names of Fioceli, Pokorny, BÖhm, Wiesner, Molish, Willkomm, Hempel and Kerner in the direction of forest botany, Wessely, von Lorenz-Liburnau, Feistmantel, Dimitz, Wachtl (Entomology), Dombrowski (encyclopedia 1886), Exner, Janka (wood technology), Guttenberg (forest mensuration and regulation), von Seckendorff, Schiffel (forest mensuration), Cieslar, Reuss, BÖhmerle, Hufnagl, Marchet, and many others are familiar to all German readers. In addition a very considerable literature in the Bohemian language is in existence, some in the Italian by Austrian authors, and some in the Slavonian.

The magazine literature began with publications by various forestry associations which became active after 1848. At the present time weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, yearly and irregular publications to the number of not less than 14 in German, in addition to several in Bohemian, may be counted, among which the monthly Centralblatt fÜr das Gesammte Forstwesen, in existence since 1875, and the weekly Oesterreichische Forstzeitung, since 1883, are perhaps the most widely known.

HUNGARY.

Hungary is mainly a fertile plain, traversed by the Danube and Theiss, an agricultural country, with the forest confined to the hilly portions, to the mountainous southern provinces of Slavonia and Croatia, and to the Carpathians, which bound it on the north and east. Nevertheless, while wood in the plain is scarce, the total forest area, including that of the two mentioned provinces, is but little less than that of Austria proper, namely, 23,000,000 acres (28%). Large areas of shifting sands, and, along the Danube and Theiss rivers, swamps, partly created by deforestation, are interspersed with the heavy black prairie and compact clay-soils.

At present, of the 23 million acres of forest the State owns 16%, corporations somewhat over 20%, churches, cloisters and other institutes 7.5%, and the balance, over 13 million acres, is owned privately. The administration of the State forests is in the Department of Agriculture but some are still under the control of the military and railroad departments.

All but the private forests are under State surveillance. Of the private properties the majority consists of large holdings and about ten per cent. are entailed, a hopeful condition for conservative management. Yet with an export of 10 to 12 million dollars or more, exploitation would appear still to be general, and devastated areas abound. It is claimed that half the area is under working plans, and that the 1000 million cubic feet of annual cut do not approach the annual increment. The State forests yield now in the neighborhood of $600,000 net.

Although naturally influenced by Austrian precedent, forestry matters in Hungary like all matters of administration are largely independent of Austria, the connection being only in the identity of the ruler.

The forests, which had been for the most part the property of the kings of the Arpad dynasty, had by them been turned over from time to time in donations to the churches, cloisters and to colonists, so that when the Hapsburgs succeeded on the throne, in 1526, only a small portion remained undisposed, and this became State property.

In the forests which were necessary for the working of the royal mines and furnaces, an attempt was early made to secure systematic treatment under an ordinance (1565) which gave instructions as to the order of fellings, the reservation of seed trees, etc. But, otherwise, the government did not make much effort at regulating forest use until the middle of the 18th century, and then, largely owing to military considerations, urged by General von Engelshofen commanding on the frontier against the Turks. The planting of forests for defense was ordered (1743) by Maria Theresa, but this order was probably never executed.

About this time, however, movements of reform in various directions are noticeable. Complete working plans were made for the Kremnitz forest in 1750, and for the Schemnitz forest in 1763. The forest ordinances of 1770 and 1781 and the law of 1791 attempted to regulate the use of communal forests, and ordered the reservation of devastated forest areas. Other legislation followed in 1807, designed to arrest the further extension of shifting sands.

Although, since 1809, forest inspectors had been employed to look after the execution of the forest laws, mismanagement and forest destruction by promiscuous cutting, pasture and fire remained the rule, and with the advent of the railroads, in 1850, increased apace.

Political troubles prevented any attempts at improvement until, in 1867, comparative peace and the new rÉgime had arrived, and finally, in 1879, it became possible to pass a reform law, which is the basis of present conditions.

A general forest law had been enacted in 1807; this was superseded in 1858 by the adoption of the Austrian law of 1852. But, in 1879, a new law reorganized forest policy and forest service. In that year, the State interests were placed under the administration of the Department of Agriculture with a technical forester at the head (Oberlandforstmeister), assisted by four section chiefs, one in charge of the State forest administration, one for the administration of corporation forests, one for the elaboration of working plans, and one, with the assistance of 20 forest inspectors having supervision of the execution of all forest laws. Otherwise the general features of German administrative methods prevail, except that for purposes of executing the protective forest laws, committees composed of three members chosen from the country officials co-operate with the government service.

The law of 1879, modified and intensified in 1898, provides government supervision of the management of corporation and of protection of forests, and prescribes that land unfit for farming, i.e., absolute forest soil (three-quarters of all forest land), no matter by whom owned, is to be reforested within six years after having been stripped, and no new clearings may be made on such soils. Mountain forests, which are classed as protection forests (around one million acres or 5.4% of the forest area so classed), as well as entailed properties, must be managed according to working plans approved by the forest department. The declaration of protective forests was to be made by a commission within five years of the enactment of the law. New planting for protective purposes could also be ordered, and this under certain conditions may be done by the interested, i.e., protected parties, which may associate themselves for this purpose. Violations of this law are liable to be punished by a fine for each acre, imposed annually as long as the offense continues. Two-thirds of the whole forest area is thus more or less under State supervision, and working plans for over 12 million acres have been, or are to be prepared by the government. An area allotment method with a normal forest formula as a check has been mostly employed in this work, which is by no means as yet completed.

To promote forest planting several nurseries have been established by the government, from which around 10 million plants are annually distributed free of charge, and subventions for reforestation of wastes are also granted annually. It is interesting to note in this connection that more than 170,000 acres have been planted to Black Locust, which is managed as coppice for vineyard stakes.

In 1884, a special fund for the purchase of forest land by the State was instituted by turning all moneys received from eventual sales of forest land into that fund. Another fund for forest improvement is accumulated by placing four-fifths of all penalties collected for forest trespasses into a separate account for that purpose. These funds have not accumulated very fast, the forest improvement fund, in 1896, being only about $120,000.

Similar to the Landes in France, there exist in various parts of Hungary extensive sand wastes and shifting sands, partly caused by deforestation. Ever since 1788, legislation has attempted to secure a rehabilitation of these waste areas, which cover in all some 600 square miles. In 1817, a first systematic beginning was made in the Banat, on the “AlfÖld” of the Magyars, under the forest director Bachofen, similar to BrÉmontier’s undertaking in France. By 1842, the total plantations amounted to about 12,000 acres, and by 1869, some 20,000 acres had been reforested, and parts of the plantations had begun to yield profits. But even to-day, there are still large areas in a desert condition.

A classic volume in German by Joseph Wessely, Hungarian forest director, Der europÄische Flugsand und seine Kultur, describes in detail the principles and methods of reclamation of shifting sands.

Most of the Hungarian forestry literature being written in the Magyar language, is inaccessible to the rest of the world.

Efforts by private endeavor to promote forestry education date back as early as 1796, when Forest Inspector Vizner opened an elementary forest school and wrote a forestry catechism.

This effort was followed, in 1806, by introducing the subject in the agricultural school at Keszthely, and, in 1808, in the school of mines in Schemnitz (Selmecz banya), a German forester Wilkins filling the chair, while a special forest school was established at Hermannstadt in 1817.

The forestry courses at Schemnitz were enlarged and the school re-organized in 1846 and again in 1872; one of the changes being the use of the Hungarian language in its instruction, which had originally been in German. In 1904, the course, which was 3 years and only optionally 4 (one year for engineering education), was made 4 years for all, and is obligatory for all higher grade State officials.

In Croatia-Slavonia, which is in many respects separately administered, an agricultural and forestry school exists at Kreutz (KÖrÖs) with a three-year course.

For the lower service four schools of two-year courses have been established by the government, the instruction being given by practitioners, and some of the students receiving free tuition.

A forest experiment station was established in 1898; it issues a quarterly magazine, Irdeszeti Kiserletek, in which its results are recorded.

A Hungarian forestry association was formed in 1866; it issues a monthly journal, distributes pamphlets, gives prizes for literary effort, etc., and is, with over 2000 members, an active agent in the work of reform. A separate forestry association, which also publishes a monthly in the Slavish language, exists in Croatia.

---