Part 11

_Geschichte der Oesterreichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft und ihrer Industrieen_, 1848-1898. 5 vols., 1902, parts referring to forestry, vols. 4 and 5, by Dr. von Guttenberg and 15 others; a unique and most comprehensive work, magnificently published as a jubilee of the semi-centennial of the coronation of Emperor Franz Joseph.

_Die Forste der Staats- und Fondsgüter_, by KARL SCHINDLER, 1885 and 1889, 2 vols., pp. 487 and 742, contains in greatest detail with historical data a description of the State and Funds forests and their management.

_Jahrbuch der Staats- und Fondsgüter-verwaltung_, 9 vols., by L. DIMITZ, 1897-1904 cont.

_Urkundensammlung zur Geschichte der ungarischen Forstwirthschaft_ by ALBERT V. BEDÖ, 1896, in Magyar.

_Die Wirthschaftlichen und Kommerziellen Beschreibungen der Wälder des Ungarischen Staates_, _by_ A. v. BEDÖ, 2d edition, 1896, 4 vols., 2242 pp., 4^o, published as a jubilee of the ten-centennial existence of Hungary. First volume contains the general description, third volume the details of government forests. A magnificent work describing in detail the forests and forest management of Hungary. This is briefed by the same author in a chapter in “_The Millennium of Hungary and its People_, by JEKELFALUSSY, 1897.”

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]

[6] _Die forstlichen Verhältnisse und Einrichtungen Bosniens und der Herzegovina_, LUDWIG DIMITZ, Vienna, 1905, pp. 389. See Forestry Quarterly, Vol. III, p. 113.

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._