STATE FORESTS.
[To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—In your issue of August 8th in commenting on the letter contributed by " Scotia " you express doubt regarding the advisability of the State embarking on a large scheme of national afforestation. You seem to base your argument largely on the failure of the New Forest to produce profitable results. The administrators of our State forests have had many difficulties to contend with, and have not always been allowed a free hand to manage the woods on strictly business principles; but it is generally admitted that the forests are now under more competent supervision than they have been for over a century. This improvement, however, dates back only twelve or fourteen years, and as it requires a much longer period than that for good management to have any effect on the financial returns of a forest, there has been little apparent change. But even if we admit that the New Forest has not been a success sylviculturally, and if we say the same of all the Crown woods in Britain, we have still no very strong argument against State forestry.
The New Forest is the largest of our State woods, but it only extends to twenty-three thousand acres, and the whole of the forest property owned by the Crown amounts to a mere two per cent. of Britain's meagre woodland area. We have surely more ample proof, but in favour of State control, in the three million acres of French State forests, and the ten million acres thus owned in Germany. If Britain has not produced the best results with under seventy thousand acres of State woods scattered in various parts of the kingdom, largely subject to commoners' rights, and placed under a Department more interested in coal mines, slate quarries, fore- shores, and London property than in sylviculture, it is perhaps only what might be expected. It should be borne in mind that it is only within the last decade or so that scientific economic forestry has been understood and appreciated in this -country. The foresters of last century, who are responsible for the present condition of our woodlands, had no oppor- tunity for technical training beyond that which other woodmen could give them. One result of this has been that, in common with privately owned forests, the State woods have suffered severely from mistaken treatment.
On the Continent it has been otherwise. There forestry education was well advanced more than a hundred years ago, and under scientific and practical management forestry has proved remunerative. Germany, for example, derives upwards of 25,000,000 of net profit annually from her State forests, and provides labour for thousands of work- people who might otherwise be unemployed. In addition to Germany, we find that in France, Belgium, Austria, and Denmark—the countries where forestry has attained its highest development — the State - owned forests are most economically managed and most profitable in every case. In Switzerland Government supervision is largely exercised, and corporate control under the various Cantons has been most successful : the tendency clearly seen in Japan and in America, as well as in Europe generally, is all in favour of a closer relationship between forestry and the State.
Some of the reasons for this movement have already been brought forward by your correspondent "Scotia." Forestry is peculiar in that a very long time must elapse between the establishment of a wood and the utilisation of the crop : meanwhile it is essential that the final object should be constantly kept in view, and an unwavering policy pursued toward the attainment of that object. In a properly regulated forest there is a series of gradations from the youngest to the oldest plantations, and in order to secure an equal annual yield operations must proceed methodically and in rotation over the whole area. Obviously, to be economically conducted, large areas are required, and these• involve the investment of much capital. This will probably never be provided by the private individual; but the State, which has perpetual existence, and can afford to -wait for a deferred income if the return promises to be .a substantial one, can suitably undertake the work. Under the State regularity of action can be obtained ; but it is not always so in the case of private proprietorship, which is naturally subject to change. The words of Professor Schwappach, perhaps Germany's greatest forestry expert, seem to sum up the argument when be says that "the permanence and resources of a nation make the State the most suitable custodian of forest property." Had there been no advance in our knowledge of forestry within recent years, it would have been unsafe to have enlarged the area of State woods ; but surely there has been such advance, and I submit that afforestation can now be undertaken by Government with every prospect of success. This, as "Scotia" points out, has been the opinion of every Special and Departmental Committee which has recently inquired into the subject.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
