THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80T00246A002800010006-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 44
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Sequence Number: 6
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
B. The Russian Occupation
1. General Notes -- The Territory and its Administration
a. The northern portion of the partitioned Polish Kingdom, Lithuania,
became a part of the Russian Empire. It was called the Province of
Lithuania and was subdivided, first into two and later into three
government divisions, Kaunas, Vilno, and Grodno.(111 Three divisions
were approximately equal in population and area. in 1914 the three
were as follows:
Government
Area
Area
S Km
Population
Population
per Scq Km
Ethnic Group
Kaunas
40,260
1,857,100
45
Primarily Lithuanian
Vilno
41,931
2,075,900
47
Primarily Slavic
Grodno
38,647
2,048,200
52
Entirely Slavic
Suvalki
12,162
718,000
54
Primarily- Lithuanian
The fourth area shown on the table, Suvalki, a part of Poland until
1914, was populated by Lithuanians and its northern portion and was
included in the later Republic of Lithuania. A narrow strip of
land along the Baltic including the villages of Palanga and Sventoji,
belonged to Kaunas until 1819 when it was attached to the Latvian
populated government of Kuronia.((21 It contained about 4050 people,
living on 85.5 sw ion, and its ad~3~li'iistration was changed for ethnic
reasons.
b. The Republic of Lithuania (1818-1940) was formed 2f the three areas
of Kaunas (lO0t-40,260 Km2), Vilno (9.6?;,-4,045 Km ), and Suvalki
(69`r4-8,367 Km2).(3) Later additions to this area included the
85.5 sq km on th Baltic given to Kuronia in 1819, and a portion of
East Prussia amounting to 55,670 sq km which later became the Antomo-
mous District of Klaipeda. Separate statistics for this latter
part of the country's history are not available (with the exception
of those for Kaunas) so that figures cited below are those of
historical Lithuania under the Czars.
c. Each government division was divided into counties and the counties
into townships. Each township was made up of a certain number of
communities and the communities of a certain nu_Lber cf villages.
The iiead of each area Government was appointed by the Czar and his
seat was located in the major city of his area. Other administra-
tive officials were located in the larger towns, to serve the county,
township, etc. requirements. The Russians treated Lithuania
differently than the Poles had. They considered, not without some
reason, that Lithuania was an ancient and integral part of Russia
which had been taken away temporarily by Poland. The Lithuanians
are not Slavs but are more closely related to the Slavs than to
other ethnic groups in Europe, and the old Grand Duchy of Lithuania
was under strong Byzantine, Orthodox Church, and Slavic influences.
There was considerable intermarriage among the Lithuanian, Ruthenian,
and Russian nobility. This had not always been the case, however.
When the Tartars held power in Russia, the Lithuanian Dukes were
ambitious to seize control over all the Russian-Orthodox world.
The defeat of the Tartars and the rising power of the Russian Czars,
however, changed this and forced the Lithuanians to unify with the
Roman-Catholic and Western oriented Poles. 4) The previous trend to-
ward the Ruthenization of the Lithuanians ( he official lanVua~e
had been Ruthenian) was halted by the new Polish influences. By
1795, these influences were very strong. Most of the nobility,
holding 80;1) of the large estwtes, were Polish. Most of the
cle:'gy were Polish and a considerable nunfoer of the townspeople,
even in primarily Lithuanian Kaunas, were Polish. The Russians,
therefore, considered themselves to be the deliverers of the
Lithuanians.
d. ti Tnile Lithuania became part of Russia, Poland retained a certain
autonomy (until 1830). Lithuania had Russian laws but Poland kept
its own laws (Code of Napoleon). Following 1863, Russian laws
were stricter for Poles and Jews in the Russian Empire than for
- 30 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246A002800010006-4
(a)
(b) The first data on all of the Russian forests was included in the
annual reports of the Russian governors of the various provinces,
who based their summaries on the research of Russian General Staff
Officers during the 1360s. Lithuania was one of the provinces
surveyed by the military during this period.
(c) The first forest atlases were drawn in 1373 (second edition 1373),
and were based on the surveys of the 1360s. The first serious
statistical surveys to determine land usage were made in 1331 and
additional studies were made in 1337. Most data which exist were
for the Russian State Forests. Their areas and annual producti-
vity have been recorded since 181.0. Organized data for all
private forests, large estates, and peasant properties have
existed only since 1838. None of the information mentioned above
,,as uniform and it is impossible to correlate it. Not until 1893
did foresters in the state forests make uniform reports on the types
of forest stands, the age relationship of the trees, and the type
of forest economy.
L'.thua.nians. This is :cflected in the fo:i-2 trj codd_' s.
According co de cu:_cnts of the Russian Central Co---,`--- of Statistics
dating from 1903, t'.. time is reliable agricultural or forestry
s" ,_`(,istics in Russla until 1330.(5) Info :.la' 1oa on the r1-1e_-
periods conies from olde f lgurec and is sub j eCt to error and
rrn,e
--~nwccuraca_es. ~~...re were no Russian forestry statistics all
until 1300. The general survey of the Russian nnpire (17U-1304)
provided data for 23 separate provinces including, the Baltic pro-
vinces. Some forestry data was recorded duita6 the survey, but
it was inadequate and inaccurate.
(d) In 1395, the Ministry of Agriculture and State Properties ordered
a detailed study of the state forests. The most important
results of this study were published in 1396, but most of the
material was never published. Many statistics on the Russian
forest economy were included in the book of J J Surozh, "Lesa,
Lesnoy Kiloziaistvo i Lesnaia Promyshlennost Rossii", 1908,
Varshava, pages I/151-, II/160-191.
(e)
In considering available source material for studying Lithuanian
forests, there are three important periods:
1. Prior to 1340 no data or statistics exist.
2. 1311.0-1838, a real if primitive forest economy began to
develop in the state forests. The Act of Sustained Yield
enforced in all Russian forests, produced some statistics.
3. 1636-19111, an increasingly important forest economy with
adequate statistical sources.
3. Forest Property Relationships and Policies Since 15
(a)
Property rights to agricultural and forest lands in Russia, as in
Poland and Lithuania, were granted by the higher to the lesser nobles
or sold. Large areas were donated to monasteries and churches.
Feudalism did not develop because the positions held by appointed
officials were not hereditary. Russian forests were historically
public land. In 1611.9 the Czar's Imperial Guard had a right to use
any forests for their own needs. Up to the reign of Ekaterina II
(1762-1796) forest property rights were not absolute. Czar Peter
I (1689-1725) took over control of all valuable forest properties,
no matter in whose possession they were. They were placed under
admiralty direction and their valuable tall timber, vital for naval
use, was made state property.(6) The noblemen who owned the proper-
ties were forced to establish forest administration units charged
with heavy responsibilities for the material in the forests and
subject to the regulations of the Navy (with punishment up to and
including the death sentence).(7) (In 1'(19, Czar Peter I gave the
populace permission to go into any forest to cut fire wood, because
the price of fuel had risen abnormally high.)
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246A002800010006-4
 x Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(b) The Czars following Peter I, especially Ekaterina II, radically
changed property regulations including those governing the forests.
Ekaterina cancelled all of Peter I's restrictions and recognized
absolute property rights over the forests. In Russian all large
forests and estates of the clergy were expropriated by Ekaterina.
The same expropriation was extended to the new Lithuanian province
in 1841-1843.(8) Responsibility for the peasant population which
had owed allegiance to the clergy (approximately 900 thousand in
Russia) was transferred to a special committee set up to govern
the crown-peasant group.
(c) Following the Russian annexation, the forests in Lithuania of the
former royal farm estates became state forests. The huge hunting
estates formerly owned by the Polish Kings also became state
forests. The Lithuanian nobles who swore fealty to the Russian
Czar were allowed to retain their private forests without restriction
upon them. The situation in these forests and in the forests of the
peasants remained practically unchanged. The right of entry
remained in many forests of the nobility and was extended to state
forests because portions of the latter had been expropriated from
the clergy and nobility and were burdened with "servitudes". (The
right of servitude was cancelled in 1831 but was revived again in
1863 after the Polith insurrection.)
(d) After the insurrections of 1831 and 1863, the Russian administration
began the colonization of the lands expropriated from the Polish
nobility with Russians. The forests of these estates were primarily
made state property. Poles suspected of being revolutionaries were
forced, in many cases, to sell their property very cheaply to
Russian bureaucrats and nobility. The right to buy property was
taken away from people of Polish origin (the Jewish population had
never had the right ). The ratio of property ownership in Lithuania
in 1795 was almost 100-0 in favor of the Poles over the Russians, btt
by 1918 had declined to three to one, still in favor of the Poles.
(e) In addition to the confiscation of their property to the advantage
of the Russian nobility and colonists, the Polish landholders were
forced (by economic necessity) to sell their properties. They
could sell to the peasants (Lithuanian peasants had the right to
buy not over 85 hectares of agricultural and forest property) or
to other landholders including the Russian nobility. A brisk sale
of forest property for conversion to agricultural purposes was in
order until the Act of Sustained Yield _a 1889 put a stop to the
practice. From this act dates a more progressive and realistic
forest economy for Russia and Lithuania.(9)
(f) Peasant forests were used as the peasants desired, both before and
after 1861, the date when the peasants were freed. The peasant
forests had long been stripped of their timber so there was no
considerable change in them after 1861. Together with personal free-
dom, the peasants received land for common use including large
acreage in state forests. The peasants promptly sold the valuable
timber thereon and converted the land to agricultural purposes. As
a result of these changes: and other attrition, forest area and
density sank very considerably from 1795-1888. Peasant forests were
generally so poor and sparse that they were not considered to be
forests and had no forestry supervision. This situation, without
significant change, lasted through World War I.
4. Forest Legislation
(a)
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania except when it was united with Poland
always had its own laws and legislation. The most important was the
Code of Lithuania (Statut Litovskii) which contained all laws
enforced in Lithuania since 1530. The first edition contained only
a few articles on forests and forestry but subsequent editions had
special chapters dealing with forestry problems. The Russians
retained the Code of Lithuania until it was superseded by the Code
of Russian Laws (Svod Zakonov Russkoi Imperii) of 1840. Peasant
forests were governed by the Linthuanian Code until this date. State
forests and those expropriated by the Russians were under the Russian.
Code from the beginning of Russian rule, and the first Russian
Governor of Lithuania wrote the first instructions for managing
state forests in 1796.
- 32 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(b) Russian laws did not exist in codified form until 1840. Law was
despensed in the form of various orders, instructions and decisions.
Attempts at codification were made during the reigns of Ekaterina II
and Alexander I but they failed. Forestry regulations were pub-
lished in the Code of Forest Regulations (Svod Ustava Lesnogo).
Editions were issued in 1842, 1857, 1876, 1893, and 1905. This code
included all regulations and orders issued since 1649 and still is in
force. It was a systemization and not a revision of the existing
laws, since there was no thought of reforming forestry policies.
Real changes which did occur in the forest economy came from
below, not from the top. They were the results of new times and
changing situations. A coriittee was formed in the forestry depart-
:dent of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture and State Properties
in 1911 to amend the forestry code, but it succeeded only in
reworking it and not in changing its essentials. After two years
of work (1911-1913) the project was brought before the Russian
Parliament, but the beginning of World War I interfered with its
acceptance and execution.
(lp) --
(c) The Forest Preserve Law of 1888 was the most important step
taken towards a serious foundation for the Russian forest economy.
Former regulations in the Code of Forest Regulations were far
behind the requirements of the country's advancing economy. The
Code was supplemented, however, by circulars and orders which
taken together made up a secondary code. The dual Code was
burdensome and awkward and made proper forest management difficult.
5.: Forest and Land Usage
(a)
In 1881, land usage in European Russia (excluding Finland and the
Kingdom of Poland) which included ten Russian government areas,
was as follows: (11)
Land
Farm
Meadowland
Forests
Waste
Total
Land
&
Land
Pasture
Million
'
illion
,
Million
1!
Million
'
Million
Usage
Iectare
ectare
ectares
ectares
`
ectares
Total
117.4
26.2
71.3
15.9
173.3
38.8
85.5
19.1
447.5
100
Crown & State Lands
3.0
1.7
2.9
1.6
112.9
64.3
56.7
32.4
175.5
100
39.2
Private Estates
of the
132.7
27.2
27.9
23.3
45.1
37.6
14.3
11.9
120.0
100
Nobility
20'.8
Peasant Lands
81.4
53.8
40.6
26.6
15.4
10.1
14.5
9.5
152.0
100
4.0
- 33 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
12
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
%
Govt.
Farm
Forest
Meadow
Waste
Forest - Forest Ownership -
Forest
Area
Land
Land
Land
Total
Density
$~
area State Crown Private Peasant
%
Pasture
(Million
1903
Hectares
1903
Vilno
40.3
27.6
19.2
13.0
0.99 39.5
-
57.9 20-6
29.3
Kaunas
36.2
22.3
32.7
8.8
0.66 30.8
-
69.2 -
23.6
Suvalki
60.0
25.4
(Included
14.6
0.64 75
-
25 -
27.1
in
Forest
Land)
(c) The State lands in European Russia and Lithuania were used as follows
in 1899:
Area
Forest %
Farmland %
Wasteland %
European Russia
53.1
0.5
46.4
Lithuania
65.4
1.8
32.8
The low percentage of farmland is explained by the fact that the most
useful farm land was distributed to the peasants emancipated in 1866.
(d) Another source gives slightly different data for the year 1887 but the
picture is not significantly different: (14)
Govt.
Farmland
Meadow
Forest
Other
Wasteland
Total
Areas
Land &
Uses
Pasture
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,00
1,000
Hectares
%
Hectares
%
Hectares
Hectare
Hectare
Hectares
Kaunas
1,443
36.7
1,112
28.
908
23.1
143
3.6
326
8.3
3,932
100
Vilno
1,557
40.5
609
15.
1,076
28.1
107
.7
491
12.8
3.1843
100
suvalki
1,14.29
47.1
705
2o.41
846
22.8
153
.
462
6.8
3,595
100
(e) Areas of true forest in Lithuania in 1911 were as follows:
Govt.
Areas Win
Forest Areas
Forest Ownership
Areas
Boundaries
Win Bound.
W in Boundaries
Km2
1000
1000
%
State
Private
Peasant
Other
Hectares
Hectares
of
Density
1000
1000
1000
1000
hect
heat
heat
heat
Kaunas
39820
3982
`620-3
15.79
158.3
25.51
460.1 74.17
-
-
1.9
0.3
Vilno
42210
4221
1015.3
29.04
285.8
28.16
70.73 69.68
20.1
1.97
2.0
0.2
Suval
12410
1241
221.5
14.07
180.
81.
35.0 15.80
1.
0.59 N
4.6
2.06
34
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(b) In 1899, land usage in the Lithuanian Provinces was as following:(13)
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(f)
Russian forest economists and statisticians figured the relative
abundance of forest products by comparing the supply with the
demand.(155) The supply was deemed abundant when there was more
than one fectare of forest per person; adequate if there was one-
half to one hectare per person; and inadequate if there was less
than one-half hectare per person. In measuring forest density
they considered 15 density and under to be inadequate; 15-'4'
adequate: and above 35 `: abundant. In Lithuania in 1899 and 1911,
the relation of forest area and density to o ~ulatioi was as
follows :
GovU
Area
i?99(16)
1911(17)
Forest
Forest
Annual
Forest
Forest
Annual
Density
Area
Wood
Density
Area
Wood
per
Supply
6o
per
supply
Person
per person
Person
per
(Hectares)
Festmete ~
(Hectares)
Person
1
Festmeters
Kaunas
23.6
0.52
1.8
15.8
0.33
1.0
Vilno
29.3
o.64
2.25
29.0
o.48
1.44
Suvalki
27.1
0.44
1.55
14.1
0.17
0.51
Average
2.10
Average
1-3
(g)
(i)
(~)
It can be seen from the above table that the wood supply situation
in Lithuania in 1899 was on the borderline between an adequate and
inadequate su-oply (based on the Russian :: easurin sti c]e) but that by
1911 the sr.pply was definitely inadequate. Because of non-uniform
distribution of the forests, the Kaunas area (Tels ai, Ponevesh, and
ITow Alexandrovsk -- later Zarasai counties) and the Suval'__i area
(Vil'_avis?_i_s county) already suffered from a scarcity of wood as
early as 1857. Peat was used in these areas as a substitute for fuel
wood. (19)
In the Vilno area, state forests were widely.- distributed in small
forest areas. Larger -tracts of state forest lay in the central portion
of the area on the boundary between Troki and Lida counties. Private
forests were concentrated primarily in the northern portion of the
territory (Svienciany county) and in the southeast (Dzisna and
Oszmiana counties).
In the Kaunas area the state forests were concentrated around the city
of Kaunas. Private forests were uniformly distributed over the area
with a lamer concentration to the north.
Larr,e state forests were located south of Suvalki city and east of
Augustov, and in the northern part of the area. Private forests
were uniformly distributed throughout the territory. (20)
The average size of state forests in Lithuania was 5,500 hectares.
Smaller areas were handed over to the peasants for farming use.(21)
- 35 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
Types of
Forest
Stands
re or
Pine Predominatt)
Spruce "
(Deciduous)
Everreen
Birch (Pure)
Oak
Alder
Other Deciduous
Non Reforested
Totals
(k) The composition of state forests in Lithuania as of 1899 was as
follows: (22)
1000
Hectares
1000
Hectares
1000
Hectares
146.3
59
42.9
27
145.2
SO
63.8
26
0'3.8
41
33.0
17
1.4
29.7
19
6.6
4.4
4.4
6.0
9.6
0.5
12.1
6
I 2.2
1
-
-
23) 99 15 97 160.9 99
(1) It may be concluded that in general the state forests of Lithuania
were in good shape at the end of the 19th Century, except for the
Vilno area where there were large areas which had not reforested.
'v. Division of the Forests by Age Classes (24)
(a) Age relationships in state forests at the end of the 19th Century
can only be estimated from comparison between annual cuttings and
wood production. At the beginning of the 19th Century, only fallen
and dead wood was taken from state forests. About the middle of
the century some cutting of live timber began. The income in
European Russia from all state forests for the years 1819-1837
averaged only 500 thousand rubles per year. From 1838-1858, it
averaged only 1,100,000 rubles. Only after 1860 was there an
interest in obtaining an income from the state forests. In 1866
they earned seven million rubles. As a result of the conservative
use of these forests, they were primarily composed in the 1850s of
ripe or over-mature trees. From 1866-1885, the average annual cut
of timber from the pure forest areas of the state forests rose to
0.22 festmeters of timber per tectare and from 1886-1898, to 0.25
festmeters per hectare. During these years it was estimated that
state forests were 8079 composed of ripe or mature stands, but that
private forests, on the other hand, were 80,9 young gro-,,rth. 255 The
private forests were logged very heavily from 1870-1890 beeaaAe of
high demand, high prices, and low supply from the state forests.
- 36 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(b) The use of the state forests in Lithuania was much greater than the
use of those in Russia. Statistics from 1878 show that in the
Kaunas area 0.75 festia:ieters of timber per hectare per year were
taken from state forests; in Vilno 0.80 festmeters; and in Suvalki
0.30 festrleters. `` The figure applied to the Russian state
forests (80" rips2ZS~ over mature timber) cannot be used to describe
the Lithuanian state forests because they were logged more
intensively. Lithuanian state forests in 1014 formed stands pro-
bably somewhat more mature than normal. The first forest estimates
made by the Lithuanian government (in 1920-21) showed that the
stands were 3 more mature than normal. The survey and research
of 1937 criticized the earlier estimate as exaggerated. It may be
roughly said that the Lithuanian state forests of 1914 were normal. (27)
The private (landed gentry) forccts were like the private forests '
in Russia, about 8o') young growrth.
7. Properties of the Trees in State Forests
(a) A study was made it 1901 of the main types of trees grow-ring in ri ~o
stands in state forests. The ..".:cults concerning size and dimensions
were as follows: (22)
Tree Ty-,)e
Location
Age
Height to
First
Growing
Branch
(m)
Pine
Grodno
Minsk
Lomzha
Oak
Minsk
115
135
Dian: (cm)
at Chest
Heights
40
1E.4
40
58
Height
31
Height
to First
Dry Branch
(m)
13
essor Buryi in 1809 established the following
(b) The research of PrIf
properties: (29)
19
14
Tree Type
Age
Specific Gravity
R
esistance to
Location
Section
of
Pressure
2.8 M
Completely Dry Wood
p
ounds per
Above
Ground
Average
s
quare inch
Pine
Minsk
243
0.505
0.
5"3
592
184
0.450
0.
477
5
98
Spruce
100
0.490
Minsi:
64
o.4G7
0.
495
672
52
0.439
0.
468
5
84
Prussia(30)
Oak
80
0.44o
Lkaterinaslav
45
0.681
0.
708
0
20
Prussia
Birch
120
0.760
I
Novgorod
52
0. 549
0.
671
8
40
I -371 1 1
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246A002800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
Tree Type
~-e
Specific Gravity
Resistance to
Location
Section
of
Pressure
2.8 M
Completely Dry Wood
pounds per
above
square inch
Ground
Average Maximur
Alder
Viatka
71
0.40'7 0.466
50'6
Aspen
Moghilev
44
0.446 0.451
582
8. Forest Yields. The subject of forest yield was not studied in Lithuania.
There were no wolume tables for Vilno, Kaunas, or Suvalki, and the
Lithuanian government (1930-39) used German tables for evergreens and
Russian tables for deciduous trees .(31) The only available figures for
areas near Lithuania are those ;given below. They are taken from German
or Russian sources:(32)
Forest Type
and
Location
Pine (12 yrs)
St. Petersburg
00.1
5.1
4.1
2.9
2.1
N. Germany
9.5
7.9
5.8
4 .3
2.4
Kaunas (194
8.5
7.1
5.7
4.4
3.0
Spruce (100 yrs)
St. Petersburg
6.6
5.0
4.4
3.0
2.0
N. Germany
15.6?
12.4
9.7
6.9
5.0
Kaunas q33 Q)
13.2
10.5
8.3
6.0
4.2
Birch (60 yrs)
St. Petersburg
6
5
4
3
a
Kaunas (34)
7.2
5.7
4. 4
3.1
2.2
As
pen (50 yrs)
Tula
7.9
7.0
5.4
4.0
3.3
Kaunas
9.1
7.6
5.3
4.2
3.0
(34)
9. Forest Management
(a) The peasant forests and those of the lesser nobility were managed by
the owner himself. The larger forests of the landed gentry were
handled by "Lovchys", or forest rangers. Almost all of the larger
forests were guarded by peasants.
- 38 -
Average increment in Festmeters per Hectare of
Normal Stands at Age 120 Years on Sites Varying
in Quality From 1-5
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The state forests of Russia had a more formal administrative system.
Historically, they had been open to every man's use. In 1762, however,
those considered to have strategic defense possibilities were put
under military ard. Peter I set up the first primitive system
in 1722, not only in state forests but in tle priv ate forests along
important rivers. These alone were LUar d_ by dragoons and
special civil `1?a~'Ci.S Private forest ow11o1: s 17ore forced to furnish
a Vald.nlei stc-, (forest ranger) and the guar .s for the forests
w li cif they owned alo p t ho r _v ers, -',-n order to -hatch not only
both river hanks for 20-30 kilometers but the valuable tall timber
which belonged to the state. The direction for this effort came from
the admiralty in St. Petersburg. A navy officer directed the opera-
tions of the forest rangers. Ekaterina II released the nobles
from this obligation and recognized their right to use their
property freely, but the system continued to operate in the state
forests. She extended the system to Lithuania when it became a
province of the Russian state. Navy officers controlled the
stands of valuable mast timber and sailors supervised by pilots
guarded the timber. State economists ran the other state forests
and the peasant forests. Peasants made up the guard force
and were obligated to fi~ .)fires.
Undo- Czar Paul I (1796-1801) the central forest rmanagement rerlained
in ad1:Lralty hands, under a special forestry division. Forest
masters andu i~her rant of supervisors were a')-)o:inted. The first
systems of tans type finer e can a"p in St. Petersburg, Iiostror!".a,
Voronezh, Kursk, Orlov, Vologda, and Pskov. Other areas including
the Lithuanian Province, were headed '!ky a forest ?-:'.aster su p_)er-
visor who directed a staff of surveyors. In 1802, the Russian
state established a system of ministries, and state forests were
handed over to the control of the I~Iinist ;r of Finance. In 1804,
a forest code of laws and r er-zlatio is for Russia was issued. and
a forestry college was established in a suburb of St. Petersburg.
Another college was established in Kozelsk in 1805, and a third
on 2lag1_zin Island in 1808.
The forestry department remained under the Ministry of Finance but
was divided in 1811 into two sections, state forests and naval
timber forests. In 182(", a new system of administration was
introduced under which territorial and district supervisory
forestrlasters, fore str:la? tees, sub-forestmasters, and forestmaster-
scientists ran the forests. State forests were placed under the
control of local government units and sub-divided into forest-
r:laster districts. Peasants still made up the bulk of the forest
;;card but were supervised by range riders. In 1837, European
Russia. had 400 professional range riders and 462 other forestry
professionals.
A permanent guard was established in 1832 and compensated for its
service by not having to pay taxes and by the right to use 33
hectares of farm land. 1837 begins a new era in the economy of
the Russian forests. In that year control of the state forests
was given to a new agency, the Ministry of State Properties. A
total of 507 foresters of various rank (including only 84 trained
professionals) and 42 thousand forest guards (30'j appointed for
only one year) served in European Russia under this Ministry. Prior
to 1837, damage in the forests was extensive and the prevailing
conservation system was hopelessly inadequate. For example, in
the Kazan area, forest damage was estimated to be as high as 15
million rubles per year, and the situation was not much better in
other areas.~~ Income from the state forests was negligible,
about 500 thou rubles annually, and expenses were approximately
400 thousand rubles.
In 1843, the Ministry of State Properties divided the forestry
department into six divisions. At this time the Corps of Foresters
was put under military discipline but in 1867 it reverted to a
civilian organization. The number of forestry personnel increased
each year and by 1903 there were 3,715 professional positions (09
vacant) in.iropean Russia. 87 of the foresters were professionals.
- 39 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
() As of 1914 the central forestry administration was set up in a very
fommnl, centralized manner.(38) LSee end of report for availability
of a chart of the Russian Forest Administration) The forestry
department was in charge of enforcing forest laws and regulating
all questions regarding the forests;' supervising the activity of the
forest conservation conmiittee; collecting forestry statistics;
directing forestry policies throughout the country; and educating
professional foresters. The department had eight divisions and was
sub-divided into 17 bureaus. The survey division and the Forest
Institutes were directly subordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture
and State Properties. Fifty senior surveyors and 235 surveyors
served in the survey division.
(h) In 1910, there were 49 territorial divisions in the Russian Enpire.(39)
Each of these divisions had a local Bureau of the Ministry of State
Properties which represented that agency in its fields of responsi-
bility. The Bureaus supervised the forest masters and gave them
their orders.
(i) In the Lithuanian Province, the Bureau Offices were located in
Vilno (serving the areas of Vilno and Kaunas - 560,000 hectares),
and in Suvalki (serving Suvalki and Lomzha - 362,000 hectares).
(j) The most important unit in the administrative system was the forest
-master district. The size of each district is the best measure of
the intensity of the forest economy in that area. The number of
districts and the size of -:she forc:;'l T-1-thin the Russian Umpire
varied from year to year as follows: (4o)
rear
Forest Districts
Total Area of State Forests
1366
599
30?,000,000 hectares
1899
741
407,000,000 It
18i3
761
-
1902
1161
253,000,000
it
1903
1232
308,000,000
"
1908(41)
1261
-
1915(41)
1549
-
As of 1389, the average district in Siberia was 350 thousand
hectares. In 1909, the average district in European Ri.ssia was
90 thousand hectares. The Lithuanian Province in 1857 had 21-23
districts averaging 35,000-38,000 hectares each.(t;_2) Because of
the high population of Lithuania and the accessibility of the forests,
timber was sold rapidly and the area of the forest districts
decreased constantly. By 1899, the average forest district was:(43)
Kaunas
Vilno
Suvalki
17,600 hectares
24,200
14,300
The districts varied in size because of the unequal distribution of
the forests. In Kaunas, the forests were scattered in small stands,
while in Vilno, there were large, solid areas of forest. The number
of districts was increased in 1914, but many new districts were not
staffed because of a shortage of trained foresters. In 1914, there
were about 50 districts in Lithuania with an average size of 15-20,000
hectares. Individual districts varied in size from 9-25,000 hectares.
4+0
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(h)
Each forest district was directed by a forest raster
to rrofcssional exami-
had to pass
84 of 507 foresters 'had_
trai n.ed_ men served in the
in th forest institutes.
1815, were non-profes-
Russia was never adequate
and this was one of the major -reasons for the failure of the
Russian forest economy. For long years, the Russian forests
produced almost no income. Relative figures were:
Su~-ervi:co.?v forest rasters were subject
ration as early as 1799, and all forest
e:im?inations after 1"02. (4)1+) In 1837,
been professionally trained. The best
most important, accessible forests and
In remote areas t e foresters, even in
sionals. The number of trained men in
Income
Expenses
1800
250,000 rubles
?
1805
283,930
99,940 rubles
1825
541,456
220,000
(1)
The productivity of the forests remained at this low level
until 1837. Actually, considering the vast reserves of valuable
timber, Russia had no forest economy at all.
As the number of trained foresters grew, the forest districts
grew smaller and the central forest administration got more and
better educated personnel. The state was driven, by the short-
age, to set up forest institutes. Lithuania had a comparatively
high number of forests, though not an adequate nuri'oer. Religious
discrimination was invoked against Roman Catholics in Lithuania,
who couldn't get a job as a forest master even if they were
formally trained. The Russian policy to "russify" the Baltic
Province extended to the forest master system. When the
Russians withdrew from Lithuania after World War I, the Russian
forest masters went along and left Lithuanian forests without
professional manpower.
10. Forestry Education
(a) During Ekaterina II's reign, German forest masters held the most
important central and local positions.(! ) They were of little
help, however, because they were poorly rained and did not
speak Russian .(46. In 1773, a class in forestry was opened for
10 hunting pag s t military school. In 1779, four students of
the St. Petersburg naval college went to England to study
forestry as it applied to ship building. In 1800, the naval
college established a special forestry division to train 35-50
students. The plan failed, however. The most important step
forward was the establishment of a "Practical Forest School" in
a suburb of St. Petersburg, the Crown Village (Czarskoie Selo).
The school was moved into St. Petersburg and later became the
Senior College of Forestry. It still plays the most important
role in training the foresters of Russia.
(b )
(c) The forestry colleges had a very large nuriber of students. In
1909, the Senior College, for example, had four hundred, and Pulawy
150. At the same time, Hungary had only 150, L'berswald (Saxony)
76, Gmunden 78, Tharandt 69, Munich 63, and Ithaca (US) 35. While
Russia was training so many foresters on a high level, however,
it was not training enough men for the practical everyday purposes
of forestry. The lower level schools each had only about 20
students. This situation is a rather typical disadvantage of
the Russian education system. (48)
Many schools were opened, closed, and opened again to train men
for forestry on a lower professional level (guards, etc.). These
were usually located in rural areas as a part of the facilities
of a forest ;,Q :s'trict. In 1908, for example, there were 33 of
these: lower.1titutions plus the Senior College of Forestry
in St. Petersour , and forestry divisions at agricultural colleges
in Moscow and Pulawy (Poland). From 1908-1915 an additional 11
lower level schools opened and the enrolLeent of those in
existence was increased to about 15 or 20.(47)
-4+1-
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(d) The Russian Government spent about two thousand rubles per person
for the college students' educations and about 750 rubles per
person for the lower level students. From 1838-1887, 1914
persons were graduated from various courses, 1638 of them on the
forest master level. During the period 1903-1908 about 150
persons graduated from the forestry colleges each year. Refesher
courses for forest masters were established beginning in 1912.(9)
11. Forestry Salaries
(a) The salaries paid Russian forestry officials, both in the central
and local administrations, were miserably low. Growing require-
ments of a higher standard of living and the rising costs of
living put these officials in a very bad plight. The educated
professionals preferred assignments to work with other profes-
sions at higher salaries. Of the 408 persons graduated from
1905-1911, only 286 went to work in the forests. Salaries
were set in 1872 and unchanged until 1912. The 955pp ~,L1ry range
during this period was from 600-1050 n tiles (about US$300-525).
(b) In addition to their salaries, officials in the forests received
supplements in the forte of fuel wood, fz?ee dwell-.*.., s (or
additional payment for one), and 33 hectares of land for their
use, tax free. Officials in the cities received special addi-
tional payments. From 1837, forestry personnel received a
certain percentage of the increased income from the areas under
their direction. Added up anywway, however, forestry personnel
were poorly paid and this fact alone was sufficient to hinder
progress. The raise in 1912 increased forestmasters' salaries
to 1600-2700 rubles a year plus the additional supplements;
forest inspectors' to 2800-3000; forestmasters' assistants'
600-1000; and estimators 1200-1500. An annual salary of only
100-250 rubles was paid for secretaries to assist the forest
masters, but in Lithuania, Roman Catholics could be hired for
this job. The experience these people gained helped the
young Lithuanian Republic very much after the Russians left
the country. In 1912, the secretaries' salaries were raised
to 100 rubles per year.
(c) The prices paid for commodities during the year 1911 provide
an indication of thefinancial plight of the foresters:(51)
100 Kg of Wheat -
7 rubles
100 Kg of Rye -
5 'R
100 it " potatoes -
1.8
1 work horse -
75 "
1 cow -
48
100 Kg of beef -
30 "
f
1
t It pork -
100
1
36
1 man's suit (woolen) -
12 "
1 pair men's shoes -
2
1 cubic meter of fuel
wood -
4 "
- 42 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
12. The Standards of Russian Forestry
a. The influence of German forestry policies were very
strong in Russia. The first Russian forestry books
were translated from German, and until 1850, almost
all rules and regulations for the forest economy
were taken from the Germans. After 1850, however,
there was a trend away from the blind copying of the
German ways. The forest colleges, which had great
influence in Russian forestry as a result of the
large number of students they graduated, led the
way in liberating Russia from the German policies.
Silviculture and planning were the first areas of
Russian forestry to become independent, although
German ideas were later accepted and developed
(e.g. Dauerwald's idea of a rapid growing system).
Russian thoughts on such broad and highly developed
doctrines as soil science, meteorology, climatology,
forest types, etc, followed world research and there
was no real independent movement in Russia in these
areas.
b. The bad situation in Russian forestry would have
improved rapidly (as it started to do from 1908-
1914) if World War I had not begun.(52) Signs of
decentralization had begun in 1896 when remote
bureaus had received the right to act independently
in organizing the forest guard, prosecuting poachers,
and approving timber auction prices. t53) Responsi-
bility for running the Russian fores economy was
transferred in part from a few very highly placed
officials to a council of forestry experts. (54)
c. The first forestry association in Russia, the "Royal
Forest Association", existed from 1832-1851. Its
activities were limited but during the period of its
existence, it issued a "Magazine of Forestry and
Hunting". A second forestry association organized
in 1871 at a time when the level of Russian forestry
had begun to rise. It was called the "Forest
Association of St. Petersburg" and it lasted until
the Revolution of 1917. It issued the "Lesnoi
Zhurnal" (Magazine of Forestry) until its demise.
This magazine was the most important organ to mirror
and influence public opinion on forestry. It was
a very important factor in the development of the
Russian forest economy. Associations similar to the
St. Petersburg group were later formed in Moscow,
Ekaterinoslav, Orenburg, Minsk and elsewhere. All
of them were designed to aid private owners to
manage their forests properly. They organized
meetings of the owners and forestry experts, trips
to points of interest, and exhibitions and fairs.
While these associations were small (50-300 members)
their influence was large.
d. The bibliography of forest literature in the 18th
Century was very limited. Most of the available
literature came from the German work. The first
book was printed in 1766 and five more followed
(all translations) before the end of the century.
From 1801-1888, the situation was almost as bad.
The "Forest Magazine" was available from 1830 to
1850. The "Magazine of Forestry and Hunting"
was available from 1855-1859. From 1871-1917 the
"Magazine of Forestry" was issued, and in Kiev the
"Forest Industrialist" was published from 1866-1890.
- 43 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
From 1890-93, the magazine "Russian Forestry"
was available, and from 1898-1918, "The Forest
Industry Herald". In addition, the colleges
published the results of research, and from 1838-1893
about 120 original works and 20 translations appeared.
After 1893, book publishing increased considerably
until World War I.
e. The outstanding forest scientists of the Russian
school were the doctrinists Morosov, the botanist
Sukachov, the soil scientists Glinka, and Dokushaiev.
While the Russian Empire sharply limited political
expression, other criticism was accepted. Scientists
were encouraged to express themselves freely on
economic or scientific subjects.(55)
13. Forest Research
a. Forest research in Russia began in 181+0, forced by
the need to reforest the treeless steppes of
southern Russia. At that time two forest districts
were established, in Berdyansk and Velikii Anadol,
and the areas were planted in trees (mainly oak).
The first problem faced in these two districts
was the study of the results of this artificial
reforestation and of the natural conditions affecting
the project. Special, low-level schools were set up
in the area to educate technicians for the task.
b. In the 1870s, public opinion as mirrored in the
forestry magazines, demanded the establishment of
a permanent research program, not only for the
steppes but for the whole empire. The concensus
of the professionals, published in the "Reports
of the Forest Department" (1890-1895), also agreed
on the need for a research program. Following
1895, special sums were allotted to research,
and special groups were assigned to study forests
in 20 government areas. In addition to this
official program, the state colleges conducted their
own projects. The greatest overall research effort
was concentrated in the southern steppes.
c. Research interests became more specific in 1908
when special districts were established to deal
with special research problems. Again, most of the
interest was concentrated in the steppes. Studies
of the May Bug were begun in three districts, and
other districts studied the seeding problems of
various trees, stands, and localities. After 1909,
the central forestry administration in St. Petersburg
became a special advisory committee, dealing only
with reforestation problems. It directed research
on reforestation and made suggestions to the central
government. (56)
d. The only forestry research conducted in Lithuania
was that of individual forestmasters acting on their
own initiative. Some very interesting research was
done in Troki County on the growth of oak trees. In
Marijampole County a program was initiated to plant
larch seeds. These beginnings have since been very
helpful to later researchers.
14
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
14. State Forest Guards
a. The guarding of the state forests against mis-
appropriations was the duty of those peasants
bound to the area. The peasants were appointed
to guard duty, without having the right to protest,
for periods of from one to two years. During
their service, they were exempt from payment of
any taxes on the land they used. In 1837, over
4+0 thousand persons guarded the more important
state forests, of whom over 80% were bound
peasants. Supervision of this group was lax
because of a shortage of supervisory personnel.
The system worked badly and led to many abuses.
The violations in Lithuania in 1857, where
control of the guard force was very difficult,
were tremendous.(57) The state forests were
particularly dif cult to protect because they
bore the last surviving stands of the tallest,
most valuable timber.
b. The difficulties in protecting the forests are
partially explained by the eastern concept of
property rights. Under Czar Peter I, the rights
of an owner in his forests were uncertain. The
state considered itself a sub-owner with the right
to use the forests. In ancient Lithuania, property
rights were more precisely determined., but the right
of entry complicated the situation. Until 1940,
Lithuania applied the Russian law which characterized
the misappropriation of timber from another's forest
as a violation but not a theft. The taking of
another's wood was only considered to be theft
when that wood had been altered by human labor
(cut for fuel or other purposes). The Russian
Czars never changed this custom because of their
political conservatism and the Lithuanian Republic
also let it stand for political reasons (the desire
to win peasant support).
c. Wood was enormously important to the Lithuanian
peasant because of its high price and relative
availability. After grain and livestock it was
Lithuania's most important product. Construction
in rural areas was almost 100% of wood and in towns
and cities 50%-80% of the buildings were of wood.
Wooden structures were easy to erect and each village
or town had its own skillful builders. With a few
simple tools (axes, hammers, a few drills, pit saws,
and cross-cut saws) they could build quickly and
cheaply. Until 1918, most buildings had simple
foundations of large round stones lying on the
ground. The consequent lack of ventilation and
adequate support caused most buildings to last
only 10-15 years. The oldest buildings lasted
no more than 50 years.
-4+5 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
d. As a result of the constant need for wood, its
acquisition became one of the peasants' most
important problems. Part of the fuel wood
ordinarily came from his own land, the rest
he took from state lands, or bought. He some-
times bought wood in order to gain access to a
forest and while he was there would try to bribe
the guard to allow him to take more than he was
entitled to. Structural wood had a monetary
value in the peasant's life. He attempted to
build up a stock of it to fill his own needs
and to sell if necessary or when prices were
high. He even gave it to his daughters as a
dowry. Wooden dwellings were built so that
they could be taken apart and moved and were
actually a portable part of the peasant's estate.
e. While the desire to obtain structural timber was
always great, it was most readily available during
periods of unrest and warfare. During the warfare
of 1812, the uprisings of 1831 and 1836, and the revolu-
tionary activity of 1905, the position of the Russian
government was so weakened that the peasants invaded
the forests (even openly) to cut wood for their needs
and for sale. For political reasons they were never
punished for these incursions, and so each succeeding
invasion became more determined and widespread. In
1918, misappropriation of timber in the forests of the
new Republic of Lithuania was particularly serious.
f. The attitudes and circumstances described above made
the operation of an effective guard force and con-
servation program very difficult. The problem is not
appreciably different today under Soviet rule, al-
though the primary need is now for fuel wood. The
attitude of the peasants toward the forests has its
roots in an ancient religious principle; that God
gave what he created to all men. If a forest owner
considered his property to be his alone, he was
violating a law of God, because growing timber
belonged to all-men. This belief held true on a
larger scale as applied to state forests, too.
g. In 1795, the Russians organized a military guard
force for the Lithuanian forests but after a short
period of pacification replaced it with a peasant
guard. The peasant guard force proved to be a failure
and after 1832, the forest guard was hired. This
force was paid with the use of 33 hectares of land
and occasionally given a dwelling place. It received
no money. The Russian government made it a policy
to try to place guards in localities remote from
their homes and to make them independent of the local
populations. The local populations, on the other
hand, resented this and actively and passively
objected to it. In times of unrest, the guards
were terrorized and their posts frequently burned.
Guards recruited locally to watch their native forests
generally were corrupted by this circumstance, even
if they had originally been honest men. In order to
get along with his neighbors and live in peace such a
man had to agree to their misappropriations of wood.
-46-
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
h. In general, the operations of the peasants
and occasional wood merchants was not too
harmful to the forests. They took mainly dry,
fallen timber or smaller trees. The guards
sometimes allowed the peasants to take the wood
suitable for fuel in order to gain their cooperation
as agents who would report the theft of valuable
timber. The forest areas were large, and the
help of such informants was necessary to effectively
guard them. Most of the fuel wood taken by the
peasants was paid for in some manner; by services
to the guard, contributions, or "treatments" (whiskey).
This was still true from 1918-19+0, if not to such
a high degree as under the Czar.
i. A guard was able to retain his post as long as his
cooperation with the peasants was moderate. If the
peasants took or he gave too much, he soon lost
his job. Frequently his own agents were his prime
accusers, or if he had cooperated with only a few
peasants, those who had not received any favors
were apt to denounce him. In most cases of
complaints, the guard was removed. When a guard
was too strict in his duties he was often terrorized
and his buildings or forest (if pine) burned. In
times of unrest and revolution, the guards were
the object of attack and were sometimes killed.
As a result, when danger threatened, the guards
were the first to flee, leaving forests open to
exploitation. The situation, as described above,
was true to some extent even up to 1940.
J. In 1869, the peasants were freed and the forest
guard was hired. As of 1889, there were 19 thousand
in the 30 government areas of European Russia, in
charge of 4,000,000 hectares of forest. Each man
guarded between 100-650 hectares, an average of 4+0.
By way of comparison, at the same time a German forest
guard was responsible for 880 hectares, an Austrian
1,670 hectares, and a Hungarian 1,350 hecta,res.(58)
In Lithuania in 1857, one man guarded an averag
of 470 hectares.(59) In 1899, there were approximately
1,x+30 forest guards and 180 mounted guards in the
forests of Lithuania. These guards were each responsible
for the following average areas:
Vilno
550 hectares
Kaunas
4140
Suvalki
660 "
By 1899, the forest guard had already been abandoned
in Prussia as unnecessary.
k. The income of the guards consisted of a small salary
and supplements in the form of land, a dwelling (if
available), fuel wood, and pasture. Before World
War I. a forest guard received 60-180 rubles per year
in salary. As a result of his low income, the guard
was susceptible to bribery. This low income factor
and the need for the guard to cooperate with the
local populace and even live with it where forest
dwellings were not available, made a failure of the
policy of settling guards in areas away from their
homes.
- x+7 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
1. Range riders (Obyeshchiks) were hired after 1826
to supervise the forest guards. In 1837, there
was approximately one range rider (400) for each
forest districtt..(6i1 In 1869 there were two
thousand; in 190 , 6,254; and the number continued
to grow until 1915 6 The average territory of
a range rider was 1& Aousand hectares, but this
includes the large northern forests which were very
sparsely guarded. In Lithuania, every range rider
supervised approximately 500-600 hectares and 8-10
guards. The range rider reported to the forest
master and handled legal details surrounding the
prosecution of timber poachers. The range riders
were poorly educated but usually had an elementary
education and practical forestry experience. The
guards were 70% illiterate, but were required to
be able to recognize figures.(( 3) The range riders
were also poorly paid. In 190, they were paid 1+00
rubles a year and slightly higher supplements than the
guard. They too were subject to bribery.
m. The range riders, guards, and clerks in forest
district offices were appointed primarily from
native populations and could be Roman Catholics.
When the Russians withdrew from Lithuania, the range
riders and clerks formed the skeleton of the new
forestry service.
n. The Russian government's expenses for forest guard
forces from 1866-1898 ranged from 300,000-2,800,000
rubles per year and from 6-94 rubles per person.
In 1863, only 1% of the guard had a state dwelling. (64)
15. Forest Planning
a. An accurate knowledge of the forests is a pre-
requisite to any proper forest planning. In Russia,
Peter I divided the industrial forests into regular
annual cutting areas.( 655 Ekaterina II ordered (1782)
a general survey, thediision of the.forests into
districts, the limitation of cleared lanes to a width
of 40 meters, and the policy of leaving at least 30
seedlings on each hectare of cleared land.
b. Presumably the first real working plans were made in
1811-1837 and were applied in the best forests around
St. Petersburg. The first plan to be published was
issued in 1830 for the Ural industrial forests. In
1837, the forests of European Russia were divided into
squares, quarters, etc. Regular use of working plans
dates from 1842, when 16 government. areas began to
use them. Instructions on them were published in
1845 and 1854. The area under plan grew rapidly
(1842 - 110 thousand hectares, 1843 - 165 thousand
hectares, 1849 - 2,710,000 hectares). Progress
stopped in 1849 because portions of the forests
were given to the peasants and the foresters were
busy on this task. In 1859, working plans were in
use for a total of 3,130,930 hectares-(66) While
the plans were being prepared, exploitation of forests
outside the plans stopped and they produced no income.
Simplified instructions issued in 1859 speeded up the
preparation of the plans. By 1884, 18,400,000 hectares
were under planned exploitation and an average of
418 thousand hectares was added annually.
- 48 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
c. In Poland (including Suvalki), working plan
preparations were begun in 1816. By 1896, only
46,200 hectares in Poland had not been surveyed
and all other areas were under working plans.
The plans were generally poor until about 1890
when their quality improved.(67) By 1905,
20,000,000 hectares in Russi had working plans.
In Lithuania in 1905, 32,120 hectares in Kaunas
and 27,9+0 hectares in Vilno had not been included
under working plans, but some areas of greater
interest had already been surveyed twice. Average
expenses for a survey were from 60-90 kopeks per
hectare.
d. In the 18l+0s, the first working plan for the Vilno
area was established in the forest district of
Olkieniki and for Kaunas in the Rumsiskis area.
These plans were sometimes revised more than once.
For example, in Vilno the Labonora district plan
was revised in 1850, 1873, and 1883; the Miedzyrzech
district in 1850, 1857, and 1878; and the Olkieniki
district in 18+8, 1857, 1862, and 1888. In Kaunas,
the Pieniany district plan was revised in 1850, 1861,
and 1875.
e. By 1915, all state forests in Lithuania had working
plans, many of which had been revised. The plans
were the results of the efforts of the 560 (as of
1909) officials who had forest planning responsi-
bilities in Russia.
f. A typical forest working plan provided for a survey
of the forest, its division by soil type into specific
areas (farmland, forest, meadow, etc.), further division
of the stands according to age and type, computation of
timber volume and yearly increment, and determination
of cutting areas. The forests were divided into
squares of varying size. In Vilno and Kaunas, these
squares ranged in size from 100-450 hectares depending
on the quality and density of the timber. The squares
were smaller in better areas. In 1915, the average was
110 hectares. Borders of the squares were geographic
features (creeks, roads, etc.) if possible, or cleared
lanes wide enough for a horse cart to pass. L'S-ee end
of report for availability of photograph of a typical
forest lane) Most state forests were surrounded by
ditches (about three feet deep and 20-40 inches across
at the bottom), and corners were marked by wooden posts
(the sign of state owned property).
g. Until 1838, cutting was on a selective basis over all
forest ranges. After 1838, selective cutting was
confined to fixed areas marked with special signs. (68
Since 1854 cuttings have been determined by compu~t,~ation
of timber volume and area.(69) In Lithuania cutting
rates have been high:
Pine at 160-180 years of age
Spruce at 160-180 "
Aspen and alder at 60-100 " "(70)
-4+9-
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
The quantities cut were low and never exceeded
the yearly increment, especially in Lithuania.
Moreover, the state forests had a large backlog
of mature timber which could be taken without
harming the forest stands.
16. Conservation
a. Peter I issued the first conservation laws, those
transferring the forests to admiralty control
and establishing a forest administration. Penalties
for cutting valuable tall timber were very severe.
They were softened somewhat by Ekaterina II when
she freed private forests from state control and
obligations. The unrestricted cutting of the
private forests and the conservative policy in
the state forests tended rapidly to denude the
private forests. This state of affairs lasted
almost 100 years and seriously alarmed the
bureaucracy and ruling classes of the Empire.(71)
The deforestation caused considerable erosion
and consequent choking of river beds with silt.
All of these effects caused the state to intervene,
and after long considerations a law to preserve the
forests was proclaimed on lE April 1888. It was
the first important, firm step toward conservation.
As a result, the state assumed control of the
private forests. The law applied to all of
European Russia except the remote northern swamps
and forests. Its provisions were relatively mild.
The owners (state or private) could not convert
forest land to other use, and were required to follow
simple working plans. All private forests were
supervised and checked by the state.
b. The organization in charge of the conservation program
was the Chief Administration of Forest Conservation
which was subordinate to the Forest Department of
the Ministry of Agriculture and State Properties.
Its directives were carried out by territorial
committees, by local forestry officials, and by
local police officials. The territorial committees
were appointed by the central government and included
a president (the local governor); a leader of the local
gentry; the president or a member of the circuit court;
the director of the local office of the Ministry of
Agriculture and State Properties and his assistant or
a forestry inspector; and others as appointed in special
circumstances. The committees were comparatively
flexible and workable because their membership included
all important local leaders of public life. They were
responsible for the posting of the forests as timber
or water-conservation preserves; for amending local
forest regulations; for changing the status of local
forest areas for other uses; for regulating cutting for
conservation purposes; for approving new working plans;
for naming areas to be reforested; and for prosecuting
violators of the forest laws .(7 ) The Chief Administra-
tion annually spent 32% of it udget on the administrative
expenses of the territorial committees and 25% to pay
80 forest masters and their assistants. Total expenses
for a year averaged 138,785 rubles '(73)
50
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
c. The effect of the conservation policies was
remarkable. They stopped disorder in the private
forests, caused prices to rise, and awakened the
interest of forest owners in maintaining their
properties. Many of the owners began to experiment
with fast growing trees (the attempts failed) and
with artificial reforestation. Some of the private
forest owners became excellent forest managers and
began to receive some income from their property
in spite of the enforced low cutting rates, lower
prices, and lack of large timber. Some of them
began to leave their timber for eventual cutting
when maturity was reached. All in all, the private
forest economy after 1868 improved very much. By
19111., almost all private forests operated correctly
under working plans supervised by the central forestry
administration.
d. The difficulties in guarding the forests against
timber thieves were described above. The expenses
of the guard force were a considerable burden on
the state. The number of guards tended to rise
as expenses rose. A guard force of 31,861 men
cost the state 3,126,000 rubles, 27% of the total
(11,536,000 rubles) expenses of the forestry program. (74)
As said before, the Prussians had eliminated their
guard as unnecessary, but in Lithuania the forest
guard has remained even down to the present day.
e. In 1903, damages to the Russian forests were assessed
as follows:
Theft or poaching
- 208,000
- 700 thousand rubles
Fire
- 4,000
- 700
Other
- 39,000
- 100
Ninety-six percent of the instances of damage were
discovered and reported by the forest guards. The
increased number of guards and the greater efficiency
of the forestry service cut down the number and cost
of forest damages as follows:
1866
- 11,000 cases
- 56,000,000 rubles
1882
- 193,E
- 7,000,000
1886
- 271,000 "
- 1,000,000
"
1898
- 193,E "
- 6,000,000
"
1903
- 251,000 "
- 1,500,000
(75)
f. Damage from forest fires in state forests averaged
about 100 thousand rubles annually with an increase
during periods of drought. In 1900, 1,373 fires were
reported in an area of 1,200,000 hectares. They
damaged 11,000,000 trees of commercial value and
7,000,000 of lesser worth. In 1901, fires burning
in an area of 1,600,000 hectares destroyed 111.,000,000
trees of commercial value and 20,000,000 of lesser
value. The amount of damages in 1903 was estimated
at 3,700,000 rubles. In 1903, 700 thousand trees
were destroyed in an area of 200 thousand hectares
with a loss of 500 thousand rubles, and during the
period 19011.-1908, annual losses averaged 11.11.1,723 rubles
from fires over an area of 165 thousand hectares.
- 51 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
Fires in Lithuania occurred primarily in pine
forests and peat logs. They were 95% the work of man.(76)
Shepherds' (usually children 10-15 years old) fires
and smudges (against mosquitoes) started many of them.
The most serious fires, however, were set by peasants
as acts of vengeance against guards. If they wished
to get rid of an unpopular guard, they would repeatedly
set fire to his forest. The only solution to this
problem was the transfer of the guard to another area.
Forest fires occurred occasionally as a by-product of
war and unrest and were also sometimes set to force
the sale of desirable wood. The system of selling
timber from state forests was an involved procedure,
but fire damaged wood could be obtained quickly and
cheaply.
g. Most forest fires were ground fires. Top fires occurred
in young pine stands but were rare. Most dangerous months
for fire were from the end of April through May and June.
Most fires occurred during daylight hours, were small
and easily extinguished, but the fires set on purpose
usually occurred on holidays, in dry weather, and in
remote stands of valuable wood. As a result they caused
great damage. The people of the area might sometimes
be 5-7 kilometers from. home (and the forests) attending
church. In their absence the guards were unable to
organize a defense force. In Vilno especially, the
pine forests always bore the scars of frequent forest
fires. The low density of these forests is the result
of fires. The only protection against fire was their
prevention by watchful guarding; matches were taken
from shepherds and other forest users, smoking was
prohibited, cut-over areas were cleared of debris,
and cutting was prohibited during the summer. If a
fire could not be localized, it was reported by a
horseman to higher echelons of the forestry administra-
tion which would then organize a large scale fire
fighting force. Fire fighting has been a duty since
ancient times of the peasants who live in forest areas.
The head man of the village would order out the young
men (two from each dwelling) with their axes, shovels,
and other tools to fight the fire.(77 In Lithuania
none of the forest ranges was particularly large, so
that fires could always be contained and large scale
damage seldom occurred. A man could be called to
fight any fire within 15 kilometers of his home.(78)
He was not compensated for his efforts until recent
times when he might be paid in fuel wood.
h. The Russians always allowed cattle to graze in mature
or semi-mature forests but denied this access to pigs,
horses, and goats. The poor quality of this pasturage
was recognized but was necessitated by the low standard
of living and lack of other suitable ]and. Even the
guards and officials of the forestry administration
were forced to pasture their own cattle in the forests.(79)
In Lithuania, with its large population, damage to the
forests from grazing was severe.
i. Damage from insects was extensive in the forests of
Lithuania and European Russia., The history of this
damage in particular species follows:
- 52 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(2)
(1) Norway Spruce
(a) The tree is subject to attack by many
harmful insects, most important of which
is the Bark Beetle (Ips Typographus).
It spreads very rapidly in fallen and
wind damaged trees and in very old trees,
and sometimes infects very large areas with
resulting severe damage. In the 1880s,
wind damage provided a fertile field for
the bark beetle. An epidemic started in
the Baltic States and spread into Russia
in 1881. The hurricane of 1881 increased
the danger. Removal of the debris of the
hurricane from the forests was very slow
and by 1889, the beetle bad reached the
Volga area. Damage was very great. The
epidemic lasted 12 years in the Baltic
States until no mature Norway Spruce
remained. 80) The inefficient system of
the forestry administration kept the prices
of damaged wood high and thus, large
quantities of usable timber spoiled in the
state forests. Damage was not quite so
severe in private and crown forests because
they sold their damaged timber quickly at
the lower prices and thus managed to save
something from the ruin.
(b) In 1052 and 1853, the nun moth (Ocneria
Monacha) appeared in the forests of Prussia
and Poland. This nocturnal moth destroys
the needles of adult spruce and usually
the tree dies as a result. In 1855, the
moth appeared in Suvalki, and Kaunas
(Rossieny and Kaunas Counties), and very
heavily in Vilno (Troki County). The cold
spring and summer of 1856 stopped the
epidemic, but large areas of the spruce
forests had already been devastated.(81
While the nun moth is an occasional {threat,
the Bark Beetle (or Printer ) is an annual
danger to the spruce stands and kills large
numbers of trees. The success of these two
insects was due to the presence of large
stands of pure spruce. There was no
successful defense against them. Only the
swift removal of diseased trees helped, and
this was hindered in the state forests. The
damaged timber the insects left was sold
annually at prices 30%-50% below normal.
Scotch Pine
(a) Most important enemy of this tree is the May
Bug, an insect the size of a large acorn. The
larvae live in the soil for five years during
which period they damage the roots of the
young pines. They thrive in large burned
or cut-over pine areas. When the cutting
system was changed from selective logging to
the clearing of strips, danger from the
May Bug increased considerably. The only
defense was a change in this system. A study of
harmful insects was made in Russia, but not in
Lithuania.(82)
- 53 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(b) Pine bark beetles (Myelophilus Peniperda
and Minor) were a secondary enemy of pine
trees which destroyed already weakened
trees. A type of weevil (Hylobius Abietis),
hurt pine seedlings by devouring their bark.
To combat this pest, the bark was removed
from the stumps of cut trees and the cleared
areas surrounded by vertical ditches.
j. The most prevalent fungus in the forests was the honey
mushroom (Agaricus Melleus). It harms older stands
extensively, particularly where the forest is used
excessively as pasture. The Rhizomorphus of the fungi
infects the tree and spreads between the bark and the
wood. The mushroom itself appears in autumn. No defense
against this pest was practiced because the use of pasturage
was legal and the selective cutting of weakened or diseased
trees was not applied. Fungi of the lower orders are very
common in Russian and Lithuanian forests, particularly in
old, diseased, or damaged trees. Birch and aspen suffer
from common white rot and its typical sponge-like growth
on their trunks. Aspen grown from sprouts is parti-
cularly susceptible to this rot and suffers annual high
losses. Types of red rot attack old spruce trees, alders,
and old oak trees. In Lithunia, during the period
1918-4o, 60% of the oaks 150-200 years old, were infected
with rot. There was no plan to combat it at that time.
k. Insect and fungi damage was very extensive.(83) The
ratio of timber killed by these pests to growing timber
held steady at 1.3 and dead wood sold at a loss of
30%-1+0% in value.
17. Forest Exploitation (Use)(84)
a. The quantity of wood cut annually is the best yardstick
for measuring the intensity of the exploitation of the
forests. This figure is available in festmeters per
hectare and should be compared with the annual increment
in growing timber and the distribution of the forest
stands according to their age in order to arrive at a
fairly accurate estimate of forest use. Some representative
figures follow for European Russia as a whole:
Festmeters of Wood
Cut per Hectare of
Forest
1891 0.2
1897 0.3
1903 0.5
b. Russian forestry instructions governing the cutting
of timber in unsurveyed forests which were not under
working plans, prescribed the following cutting norms:
Quantity (Festmeters)
Forest Density per Hectare
Normal (good) stands 2.8
Moderate stands 2.1
Poor (scattered) stands 1.5
- 54 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
c. By way of comparison, at the same time Western
European norms were:
Austria 3.25 festmeters per hectare
Germany 3.30 - 5.10 festmeters per hectare
The result of the conservative Russian policy was
that its forests were used too little. The European
forests were primarily young and vigorous and the
Russian forests over-ripe and susceptible to disease
and decay.
d. From 1890-1894, all the forests of European Russia
produced 195,000,000 festmeters of wood. Of this
quantity, 66.4% was cut from live timber and 33.6%
was cut from dead wood. This ratio also held true
in 1903. 85 From 1890-1894, the following amounts
of wood we ~ used per hectare per year in the various
Lithuanian Provinces:
Average Value
Kovno
1.12 festmeters
1.06 rubles
Vilno
1.68
0.33
Suvalki
1.12
1.41 ".
(86)
Wood production in Lithuania during two representative
years was as follows:
Net
Net
Wood Production
Income
Aver.
F.M
Net
From
Price
From Total'
Income
1 Hect.
1
Area in
From 1
Rubles
in
F.M.
Forest Area
F.M.
Hectare
Total
Rubles
Rubles
Area
Years
in Hectares
Kaunas
1878(87)
191,840
11+3,850
0.75
123,267
64.25
0.85
1911(88)
156,860
898,175
6.30*
783,005
500
0.80
Vilno
1878
313,404
188,042
0.60
110,802
35.4
0.59
1911
283,317
1,268,883
4.70*
1,512,689
590
1.20
suvalki
1878
334,630
100,390
0.30
60,300
18.0
0.60
1911
219,447
604,933
2.70*
1,620,784
740.0
2.60
*The heavy cuttings in 1911
point to a concerted drive
to cut surplus and over-ripe
timber especially in Vilno.
- 55 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
e. From 1866-98, the state forests of the Vilno
and Kaunas areas annually produced on an
average, 1.10 feat meters of wood per hectare
and the Suvalki area two Pest meters per
hectare.(89 Eighty percent of this quantity
was ordinarily prepared for sale, indicating
that the supply was more than sufficient to
satisfy the demand. The stock available for
purchase included the timber earmarked for
cutting plus the uncut surplus stock from
previous years. In European Russia in 1903,
for example, 184,000,000 feat meters of wood
were available for sale, of which 100,000,000
was newly designated for cutting and the balance
remained uncut from previous years. Forty-two
percent of the new stock and 19% of the rest
were actually sold.
f. In 1903, Lithuania and Poland used the clear
cutting system. The only trees out selectively
were the dead ones. The right to cut these on
areas of not less than one square (100 hectares)
was sold to agents and merchants. In 1867 and
1878, wood production in European Russia was
consumed as follows:
1867
1878
Peasants on state farms
49%
8%
State requirements
4%
15%
Private interests
%
100 100%(90)
The decrease in the peasants' use of wood is explained
by the fact that they were awarded their freedom and
lost the right to use the wood of the state forests.
In 1878, they had to purchase the wood they used.
The 1878 figures are fairly typical and remained
about the same until World War I.
g. The 184,000,000 feat meters of wood available for
sale in 1903 in European Russia were valued at
49,800,000 rubles (43,000,000 rubles for the
100,000,000 fast meters of freshly designated
wood and 6,800,000 for the stock remaining from
earlier years). The sale price was set at
60,700,000 rubles (53,200,000 rubles for the fresh
stock).((9l The average rise in value (bid over
the official price) of the wood at the auctions
was 22%. In 1867, it reached 45% and in 1874,
36%. The increase in the bids over the official
price is explained by the rising demand, falling
production, and rising price.
h. In 1907, the state forests of European Russia
produced 56,700,000 feat meters of wood valued
at 60,000,000 rubles' ~92j In 1913, they produced
88,800,000 feat deter lued at 96,400,000 rubles.
Production and forest income steadily increased
during the period.
56
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
18. Reforestation
a. The first steps toward encouraging natural re-
forestation were taken in the Polish Kingdom
in the 17th Century when grazing in royal hunting
forests was restricted in order to stimulate
growth in cut-over and burned areas.(c The
first steps were taken in Russia in , with
a proposal for clearing strips on the lee sides
of the forests not over 10 meters wide, and
leaving 20-30 seedlings on each hectare for
reforestation purposes.( 1) Conditions for natural
reforestation in Lithuania and the northern portion
of Poland are generally favorable and areas
selectively logged reforest quickly.(95) On
cleared strips, the natural process was badly
retarded. The cleared strip type of logging
was introduced in 1810.(96)
b. According to statistics of 1883, during the period
from 1862-1882 successful (70% of the primary trees
replaced) natural reforestation followed strip
logging operations in 25% of the evergreen and 8%
of the deciduous forests (a total of 91,576 hectares),
located in 212 forest districts in 27 government areas.(97)
"Sufficient" reforestation (10-70% of the primary
trees replaced) occurred in 11% of the evergreen and
11% of the deciduous forests. "Unsatisfactory"
reforestation (10-40% of the primary trees replaced)
occurred in 12% of the evergreen and 11% of the
deciduous forests. The hardwood deciduous trees
reforested only 3% of the primary trees, the soft
woods replaced 11%, and no reforestation at all
occurred in 8% of the cases. Reforestation of
deciduous trees fell into the "unsatisfactory"
category as high as 43% of the.time. A particularly
bad situation existed under the Kingdom of Poland,
since annual cutting exceeded the reforestation
rate by five times.
c. The initial reforestation period did not exceed
12 years (i.e. within 12 years after an area was
cleared it had achieved a sufficient ground cover
of new trees mainly of the soft deciduous type).(98)
Natural reforestation supplied 93% of the new growth
during the period (1862-1882) and cultivated plantings
the rest. Total new growth averaged 165 thousand
hectares per year during this period. The system of
clear strip logging led to large areas of reforestation
and vacant areas as well. In 1898, in central and
southern Russia and in Poland there were 200 thousand
hectares of unreforested land (mainly in the pine
forests).
d. In Lithuania, the clear cutting method has been the
primary logging operation since 1900, and therefore,
reforested areas are largely of the soft deciduous
type. The final reforestation of an area with its
predominant trees usually began 10 years or more
after cutting. The desire of the forestry administra-
tion was to achieve a natural reforestation of an
area with the same type of trees which had been cut
down. The most desired trees were spruce, pine, and oak.
- 57 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
Birch, aspen, alder, and other soft woods were not
important until 1922, when they began to be used
in the production of veneers. The forestry ad-
ministration stimulated natural reforestation by
leaving 30-50 seedling trees per hectare, prohibiting
grazing in the cut-over strips and in parallel zones
double the height of the predominant trees in the
area. In 1870, the German system was introduced of
using the cut-over areas as beds to raise seedlings
for 1-3 years(9y)In Germany, the person using cut-over
strips as farmland was required to plant the desired
trees with his crops. In Lithuania the same system
was in use, but the peasants disliked using the rich
forest land for crops because of the difficulty in
removing stumps and keeping down sprouts. Growing
trees from seeds was abandoned on the light, sandy
soils because of the danger of wind erosion.
e. The changeover from selective cutting (helpful to
natural reforestation) to the cleared strip process
resulted in the growth of soft deciduous trees of
lesser value in the cleared areas, and delayed by
10 or more years the regrowth of the original and
more valuable tree types.(100) Furthermore, large
areas did not reforest at all. There is no indica-
tion that any artificial reforestation took place
in Lithuania prior to 1795. Wealthy land holders
did plant large numbers of foreign trees and plants
(including entire parks of these) on their estates,
but only for decorative purposes. The presence of
these plants, however, offers an opportunity to study
their adaptability to the Lithuanian climate and the
advisability of trying to grow them commercially on
a large scale.
f. The Russian forestry administration was interested
in protecting the most valuable trees (oak and pine).
Where soil conditions were suitable, oak trees were
introduced. Soil condition was the main factor
affecting tree growth whether in natural or artificial
reforestation. The black poplar (Populus Negra) with
its characteristic rapid growth, was introduced from
eastern Russia, mainly for landscaping purposes around
military construction (Alytus, Kaunas, and other areas).
Another tree brought into Lithuania was the Sheluga
(Salix Acutifolia), a type of willow which grew in
the continental climate where the Volga runs into the
Caspian. The Sheluga was valuable in preventing wind
erosion in the sandy areas along the Baltic Sea and
in the Vilno area which has large areas of sandy soil.
While conditions were good for the growth of the black
poplar and Caspian willow, their seed regeneration
was very bad, if not a complete failure.
g. The Italian poplar (Populus Pyramidalis) was
introduced for urban landscaping. Land owners
brought in valuable fruit trees from foreign lands.
Peaches, apricots, grapes, and even palm trees grew
in their green houses. Horticulture reached a high
level in the last years of Polish control over Lithuania
and continued under the Czars. After 1888, when the
new conservation laws made wood scarce, prices rose and
private forest owners began to experiment with fast
growing foreign trees. As a result, private forests
in Lithuania contain entire areas of the North American
Jack Pine (Pinus Banksiana); the Austrian Black Pine (Pinus Nigra);
- 58 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
The French Maritime Pine (Pious Maritima); the
Polish larch (Larix Polonica); the Siberian larch
(Larix Siberica); and the German European larch
(Larix Europea). These plantings did not exceed
5-10 hectares each and were in the research stage.
Soviet scientists continue to study them and propose
to plant some of them widely in Soviet Lithuania.(101)
In addition to the above, many shrubs were intro-
duced but only for landscaping purposes.
h. While natural reforestation was most important in
the state forests, Russian forestry has an old
tradition of artificial reforestation to prevent
erosion. Russia has large areas of shifting, sandy
soils, eroding gullies, and treeless steppes, and
Russian foresters have long used trees to control
these areas. The first steps in this program were
taken around Astrakhan and the sea of Azov where oak
trees were planted. In 1786, private land owners
were given financial support to induce reforestation
of the steppes. Czar Paul I (1796-1801) established
a special "Practical School of Forestry" whose graduates
were appointed as silviculturists and assigned to
reforestation programs.
i. In 1830, a program was begun to control the shifting
sands on the Baltic coast between Palanga (Lithuania)
and Ventspils (Vindava) in Lattia. Three thousand rubles
were allotted for this purpose. Steps were taken to
settle the area and anyone willing to move there
received 150 rubles and enough wood to construct
the necessary buildings. From 1835-1860, 1,131 hectares
of land were reforested although not entirely successfully.
In 1870, a new program was initiated to reforest the
dunes around Ventspils. The predominant trees planted
in this area were the Sheluga (Caspian Willow) and
scotch pine.(102)
~. Russian forestry paid the most attention to the
reforestation of the southern steppes. Most
scientific manpower and financial resources were
concentrated in this area. Entire new forest
districts of planted trees (primarily oaks) arose
in areas such as Veliki Anadol and Berdyansk.
Research developed in the area on the reforestation
of arid regions and the work carried on served as a
practical school for many famous Russian soil and
forestry scientists including Morosov, Dokuchajev,
Glinka, and others.
k. In the forests proper, artificial reforestation has
really been applied only since the end of the 19th
Century. From 1861-1892 natural reforestation was
the popular way to replenish a cut-over area. In
1899, artificial planting began to be used.(103)
At that time, a certain portion of the money
collected from wood sales began to be set aside
for reforestation expenses. The forestry authority
thereafter used the money for this purpose. In 1890,
only 77 thousand hectares of land in European Russia
had been cultivated and seeded for artificial
reforestation. In 189+, only 72 thousand hectares
were under cultivation. From 1890-1893, eight thousand
hectares were replanted, which means that 13 thousand
hectares had been lost. Of the 72 thousand hectares
- 59 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
in 1894, 42 thousand (evergreen 22 thousand and
deciduous 20 thousand) had been planted and 30
thousand (evergreen 13 thousand and deciduous
17 thousand) seeded. From 1894-1898, an
additional area of only 24 thousand hectares
was planted or seeded but after 1899, the
cultivated area grew rapidly as the deposits
for this purpose accumulated. From 1899-1905
the following measures were accomplished:
(1) Support of natural reforestation in
eight thousand hectares by means of
soil cultivation;
(2) Cultivation of trees on 120 thousand
hectares of new land;
(3) Budget appropriation for reforestation
measures on a total of 218 thousand
hectares, including areas where earlier
planting and seeding had failed.
1. In 1899, a total of 121 hectares were under
cultivation. By 1903, this had risen to 330
thousand hectares. The following budgeted amounts
were set aside for reforestation:
Average Annual Budget 100,000-200,000 rubles
Annual Deposits Received
from Collections
1899 60,000 rubles
1900 300,000
1901 1,000,000 "
1902 1,700,000
1903 2,500..000
1904 3,200,000
1905 3,900,000 " (104)
As a result of these appropriations, the following
land areas were replanted or seeded:
1899 100 hectares
1900 2,000
1901 10,000 "
1902 17,000
1903 29,E "
1904 43,000 "
1905 48,000 "
From 1908-1915, 440 thousand hectares were planted or
seeded. For this purpose the following sums were expended:
1908 1,062,042 rubles
1909 1,202,739
1910 1,404,644
1911 1,661,694 "
1912 1,844,043 "
1913 2,419,736 "
1914 2,339,849
1915 2,420,000 "
- 60
(105)
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
World War I put an end to the increasing
reforestation program.
m. Until 1899, the following areas had been
artificially reforested in Lithuania:
Kaunas
Kaunas forestry district 140 hectares
Telshe forestry district 122 It
Sventsiany forestry district 206 hectares
Troki forestry district 165 is
Suvalki
Gryshkabuda forestry district 60 hectares
TOTAL 693 "
When compared to the Russian total of 707,619 hectares
artificially reforested by 1899, it can be seen that
the program in Lithuania had been relatively neglected.
Natural reforestation was still the most important
at this time.
n. While the deposits for reforestation purposes
accumulated rapidly the forestry administration
was not staffed sufficiently to use them all.(106)
In Lithuania, these deposits accumulated as
follows:
Vilno
Kaunas
Suvalki
In 1905, deposits made in all European Russia totaled
an average of 0.02 rubles per hectare of pure forest
land. Excluding the northern forests, the average
was 0.07 rubles. For Lithuania these figures were:
Vilno
Kaunas
Suvalki
17 rubles per hectare (cut-over)
18 " It to
0.14 rubles per hectare of forest
0.14 it It
0.08
At the same time expenses for reforestation per
hectare of forest land in Western Europe averaged
0.45-0.73 rubles. 108) After 1899, the deposits
were transferred io the general budget, and appropria-
tions for reforestation increased.(109)
o. In general, the average outlay for the reforestation
procedure was as follows:
Cost of planting or seeding 5.5 rubles
Additional expenses (personnel) 9.0 "
Care and supplementary reforestation 1.8
Total per hectare 16.3 "
An expenditure of 18 rubles per hectare was not
sufficient and if less was spent, the work was
badly done. In Vilno, the deposits accruing
from one hectare averaged 14 rubles but only five
rubles were spent in reforestation (as of 1905) and
the effort suffered.(110) The forestry administra-
tion left few reforested areas in Lithuania and those
which were established were not cared for. By 1918,
they had largely disappeared or had been taken over
by successive growth.
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(107)
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
The following techniques were used in artificial
reforestation:
(1) Seeding in connection with the primary
agricultural crop of the area. This
was rarely used;
(2) Collection of evergreen cones for seed
(done by peasants for compensation). The
cones were dried in seed-making establish-
ments which were usually located in block
houses. Each of these ordinarily had two
drums covered with wire net. Cones were
put in and taken oft from an opening on
the top. The drums were located high,
close to the ceiling and could be rotated.
The husking house was heated by a stove
range to about 100?F and after the cones
dried and opened, the seed fell to the
floor and was swept up. The guard was
required, as part of its duty, to collect
the cones, dry them in their own clay ovens,
thrash the open cones, and deliver 1-2 lbs
of the seed to the forest master before the
spring work began in the forests. The seeds
were stored in glass or clay containers until
they were used.
(3) The guard had another duty; to collect acorns
(50 kg) for seed. The peasants also made these
collections to earn money. The acorns were
gathered after the first autumnal frosts and
stored buried in the earth.
(4+) Soil was prepared for planting in the fall by
youths who were paid 20-30 kopeks a day. The
soil was broken by mattocks, shovels, or plows
and the sod removed. The seed was sown in
early spring, each individual seed in a
cultivated plot, 0.5 meters x 0.5 meters.
(5) Each forestry district maintained its own
nursery. When the trees were one to two
years old they were planted. Planting and
seeding always took place in spring; an
unfortunate time, because Lithuanian springs
are very short and the peasants were eager to
work on their own crops. Frequently, by the
time they were willing to do forestry work,
it was too late to plant or seed. This
accounted for the lack of vitality of many
of the young trees, and the problem is
still present in Lithuania. Acorns grew
best because they were seeded in deep holes
probed by sharp sticks. Trespassing on the
planted and seeded areas was not allowed,
either by cattle or humans, but peasant
children frequently invaded these areas in
search of berries and hazelnuts which grew
in abundance. The planted areas were protected
by ditches (to combat weevils) and occasionally
by crude stave or lath fences.
62
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
r. The amount of care extended to growing stands
was only incidental until 1898. Thinning and
clearing was begun in all state forests of
European Russia from 1888-1893, on an annual
average of 4,500 hectares, but it should have
been done on at least 330 thousand hectares yearly.
The area increased sporadically as follows:
Each forestry district contained at least one
husking house. Production was ordinarily low
but sufficient to fulfill the limited needs of
the district until artificial reforestation
became more important after 1900. From 1908-
1915, however, 274+ new husking houses were opened
in European Russia. Attractive premiums were
offered for persons who achieved best results
in seed production, planting, and reforestation,
and a large step forward was taken in general
production and efficiency. Nursery areas were
steadily increased. In 1908, there were only
850 hectares in European Russia but in 1914,
there were 1,060. In Lithuania, a number of
small nurseries were established in the forests.
1896
17,600 hectares
1897
X2,000 "
1898
56,000
1899
80,000
1900
77,000
1901
80,000
1902
1903
75,000
83,000
1904
66,ooo "
1905
95,000 "
s. Since there were 127,000,000 hectares of state
forest in 1904, this effort was inadequate.
Thinning the forests could only be applied in the
most valuable areas where demand was highest and
supply most inadequate. In such forests, the
expenditures for thinning were returned with a
profit. Thinning and clearing were applied as
follows:
Year
Number of
Hectares
1902
75,000
1903
83,000
1901+
66,ooo
1905
95,000
Rubles
Spent
Taxation
Value
Sale
Value
161,000
503,000
891,000
195,000
556,ooo
958,000
191,000
518,ooo
876,000
239,000
611i.,000
877,000
t. The greatest effort in thinning, clearing and
nursery development was put forth from 1908-19114.,
over an area of 820 thousand hectares. 1~ There
was little loss in clearing the forest be6ause a
great deal of it was lost anyway (in Lithuania from
1918-1914.0, the average loss was 500 thousand fest
meters per year).(u2) In Lithuania, thinning was
carried on in the forests of lesser value and density
but not in the more valuable forests. There are no
statistics available on the work, but the evidence in
the Lithuanian forests indicates that it was very
limited.
- 63 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
19. Other Forest Income
a. In addition to their exploitation for wood
products, the forests had auxiliary uses as
meadowland and farming areas. The meadow and
farming areas were allotted to the guard or forestry
personnel as part of their compensation, or rented
to peasants. The peasants could take forest litter
(for fuel), sand and clay; dig holes to store their
potatoes over the winter; graze their stack and
collect hazelnuts, berries, and mushrooms. All
these minor uses provided but little income to
the state, but the rental of farm land and mills
was more lucrative. In 1903, the forests of
European Russia had 21,1+72 rental areas or
facilities with an area of 20,000,000 hectares
providing an average annual income of 1,100,000
rubles. Comparative income from one hectare of
forest and one hectare used for an auxiliary
purpose was as follows:
Forest Income
Per Hectare
Rubles
Auxiliary Income
Per Hectare
Rubles
1866
0.67
0.07
1875
1.20
0.13
1893
0.97
0.18
b. In some areas, forest land produced less income
than auxiliary land did. In the Warsaw area in
1893, pure forest land produced an income of 2.20
rubles per hectare per year while auxiliary areas
produced 8.10 rubles per year. This was the result
of relative over-population. The ratio in the Grodno
area at the same time was 1: 2.2 rubles and in Lithuania
it was approximately the same juthor's estimat7.
The income from such minor items as berries, grazing,
hunting, and fishing was 30 thousand rubles in 1866;
100 thousand rubles in 1870; 300 thousand rubles
in 1880; 500 thousand in 1890; and 1,100,000 in 1903.
20. Prices, Profits and the Sale of Wood
a. The first official price for wood was set in 1799
and was subsequently changed in 1801i., 1805, and
1807.r1l An entirely new price system was
estabiiis d in 1810. Prices were determined
according to the type of tree, quality of the
wood, and distance of the forest from a "floating"
river. After 1826,.prices were set by the
territorial bureaus and generally were not in tune
with market prices. After 1838, market prices and
transportation and felling expenses were taken into
account in the determination of price. In 1883,
limited instructions were issued on how to compose
a price schedule so that the price schedules of
various areas would to some degree correspond.
b. Wood was generally sold "at the stump". The buyer
took the responsibility of transporting the tree from
the forest. Until 1815, wood was sold at the set
price because demand in European Russia was low.
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
After 1847, demand was high everywhere,
including Lithuania, and sales by auction
began to increase. After 1860, most sales
were by auction and after 1869, other types
of sale were rare. Following 1869, the
territorial forest bureaus were in charge
of all sales from state forests. In 1851,
peasants on state property were allowed term
payments on their wood purchases and after 1881,
they could offer their neighbors' guarantees to
secure their purchases. Three types of sale
were used throughout European Russia:
(1) Privilege sales - at or below set
prices to churches, public schools, etc.
(2) Free sales - for state enterprises
(bridges, etc.), or to peasants in
disaster areas for reconstruction
purposes.
(3) Auctions - regular open auctions in
which merchants participated, and
closed auctions only for the peasants.
c. In 1903, 57,300,000 feat meters of wood were
available for sale. Two thousand, nine hundred
feat meters were sold at Privilege Sales for 500
thousand rubles (actual value 1,200,000 rubles).
An equal quantity of the same valuation was
distributed under the Free Sale arrangement and
the balance was sold at auction. In 1901, the
practice was begun of holding auctions in the
forests for the peasants. In that year, 400
thousand trees worth 531,026 rubles were sold to
37,700 persons (an average of nine trees and 14 rubles
per person). The prices paid were 36% below the
established price structure. The peasantry
(26,729 persons) bought, at sales other than
auctions, trees worth 1,581,456 rubles (17% above
the set price), an average of 56 rubles per person.
The average purchase by value per person in
Lithuania was 162 rubles in Vilno and 99 in
Kaunas. The figures show purchases above the
peasants' budgets, indicating resale to wood
merchants. The same situation existed in
Lithuania from 1918-40. The best timber purchased
at the closed peasant auctions was resold to the
merchants. This was an abuse of a system which had
been established to help the peasant buy without
merchant competition.
d. Purchase prices were as much as 45% higher than
the established price schedule from 1867-1874
and 36% higher from 1875-1882. In general, the
discrepancy tended to decline. Timber to be
offered for sale was figured in value by counting
individual trees, or by counting the number of trees
in a small plot of a certain size and multiplying
this number by the number of such plots to be cut.
- 65 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
On clear cut strips, the Lithuanian system used
a plot 20 x 20 meters in size. Deadwood was sold
in squares of 110 hectares. The peasant was unable
to purchase rights to this large a tract, and
as a result the forest income dropped. Smaller
units were impossible to service because of the
limited size of the forestry administration.
Not until the late 1890s were any used, and
then only in areas of heavy wood consumption
(including Lithuania) where forestry districts
were growing smaller.
21. Expenditures
a. Artificial reforestation, care of young forest
stands, and particularly the systematic ordering
of the forests (working plan system) used up most
of the funds budgeted for the forestry program.
Other commitments (housing for personnel, improve-
ments in transportation, swamp drainage, bridge
repair, etc) were allotted a very small share of
the budget. From 1866-1887, in all of European
Russia, only the following limited construction
and repair was accomplished:
Drainage ditches - 10,000 1
Boundary ditches - 11,000 km
Forest road repairs - 7,430 km
Wooden bridges constructed - 1,391
Boundary sign posts erected - 105,328(11)
Expenditures rose sharply prior to 1910 and remained
high until World War I. Huge sums were appropriated
to establish new working plans (especially in Asiatic
Russia), increase artificial reforestation programs,
and to improve the carrying capacity of forest roads
and rivers. Funds for the latter purpose grew
steadily after 1907.(15) In that year, 65 thousand
rubles were appropriated for all of European Russia.
In 1908, the sum grew to 190 thousand rubles and by
1915, it reached 950 thousand rubles. Plans for
improvements from 1912-16 called for:
(1)
Improvement of ! thousand kilometers of
forest road at a cost of 4,200,000 rubles.
(2) Construction of 18 thousand kilometers of
new roads (graveled and ditched on both
sides) at a cost of 4,300,000 rubles.
(3)
Improvement of rivers to make them suitable
for timber floating - 2,800,000 rubles.
(4) Construction of new canal locks, ports, etc -
200 thousand rubles. World War I limited
the construction which had begun on this
program in 1912.
b. The improvements scheduled for 1912-16 were not begun.
A special policy for transportation routes near the
Prussian border was initiated by the Russian govern-
ment.(u6) It purposely did not care for the roads
(except for the strategic highway network) because of
the threats of war with Germany. There is no indica-
tion of any road improvements in Suvalki, Vilno, or
Kovno. Some locks were built on the Zheimiana River
and many forest dwellings were constructed. More than
50% of the forest guards and 100% of the forest masters
had state owned homes.
- 66 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
22. Income and Expenses
a. At the beginning of the 19th Century the income
from state forests was negligible. The forest
density was relatively high, the population density
was relatively low, and the demand for wood was
slight. Income from state forests grew steadily
however, as did the expenses of maintaining them:
Income
Expenses
1805
283,930 nahlse
99,940
1825
541,456 n
220,000
1831-36 (aver. annual)
598,280 "
?
1837-43 ( n )
898,679 "
1847
1867
1,315,687 " 4,739,882 "
1,971,985
1868-78 n )
8,900,000 "
4,400,000
1886
13,200,000
7,200,000
1897
24,000,000 "
6,600,000
1903
63,10o,000 "
11,800,000
1907
59,982,000 "
?
1910
74,976,499 "
1913
96,350,330 "
b. The following conditions were in effect in the Western
portion of European Russia, including Lithuania, the
Lake Region, and the Baltic Provinces, but excluding
Suvalki:
State Forest Total Total % Total
Forests Area (in Forest Forest of Forest
(Total Area Hectares) Per Income Income Increase Income of
in Hectares) Person 1866-77 1878-87 1888-97 Increase
8,0~00,300o rubles
58,000,000
962,300
525,000
98.,087 7
60,807,708
7,260,000 0.55 14,500,000 24,800,000 71% 41,900,000 69% ?
rubles rubles rubles
In Grodno and Suvalki in 1903, income from a single
hectare of forest averaged 6.60 rubles. By way
of comparison, income in Prussia averaged 32 marks,
Bavaria 44 marks, and Saxony 72 marks (1 ruble _
approximately 2 marks).(118)
c. In 1902, the state forest budget for European Russia
was set up as follows:
(1) Income
Rentals (farmland, fishing rights, etc)
Wood Sales
Minor Uses
Fines
Other
(Pasturage, hunting, etc.)
(2) Expenses
Salaries for central administration
Salaries for territorial administration
Forestry colleges and schools
Forestry projects (working plans, re-
forestation, eta)
Construction
Other
626,306 rubles
6,092,877
306,057
(117)
2,942,393 " (119)
490,000
1,077,843
11,535,556
The profit from the forests in 1902 was 49,272,152
rubles. By 1913, income and expenses had both increased 50% above 1902.
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
23. Forestry in the Private Forests
a. About 70% of the forest area in Lithuania was in
the hands of private owners (the gentry), so this
area was very important in the forest economy.
The gentry owned a total of 46,600,000 hectares
of forest in European Russia during the period
1881-1887. About 66% of this area was regular
forest and the balance was covered by brush and
undergrowth. The gentry owned forests in Lithuania
(Kaunas, Vilno and Suvalki) at this time totalled
1,785,300 hectares of which 1,357,400 hectares
were regular forest and the rest (427,900 hectares)
was brush or thinly forested pasture and meadowland.(120)
After the liberation of the serfs and the subsequent
increase in prices, the need of the gentry for money
was such that they cut their forests heavily,
particularly in Lithuania and Poland. Since the
supply of wood from the state forests was then
low, the heavy cutting and other factors such as
fire and theft caused grave damage to the private
forests. In the Novgorod area, private forests
were so devastated that there was little possibility
of restoring them.() As a result of the damage
caused, the Forest Conservation laws of 1888 were
passed, but by this time most private forests were
already badly damaged. Good timber could only be
found in thinly populated, remote areas far from
good transportation. The 1888 laws halted the
overcutting, established working plans, and applied
the principle of sustained yield. Prices rose sharply
as the supply of wood dwindled and this gave an added
incentive to the owners to maintain and improve their
forests. In 1906, the law applied to over 38,000,000
hectares of forest divided into 67,677 separate forest
ranges. Working plans were in use on 12,000,000 hectares
(31%) and 27,431 ranges (41%). In most government areas,
at least 50% of the private forests were managed under
working plans.
b. The state forestry administration advised the private
owners and aided them with reforestation by selling
seedlie and seed cheaply, and by granting premiums
for good results. Every area had private forests
which were properly managed. Proper guard systems
were established., forest rangers were employed, and
cutting rates like those in state forests were
applied (oaks 180 years, evergreens 120 years, and
softwoods 60-80 years). Some owners set up husking
houses (for seed), established nurseries, and employed
thinning in their stands. By 1914, about 20 years after
the law bad been applied in Lithuania, ripe stands began
to appear in the private forests of the country which
could be sold for good money, but the production of the
private forests remained far below that of the state
forests.
c. The demand for planting material and seeds became so
great that the state forestry service could not meet
them. Private forest guards had the same duties and
rights as state forest guards. Newly seeded or planted
areas were exempted from taxation for 30 years and
long, cheap credit was given for new planting materials.
68
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
An autonomous institution, Zemstvo, established in
1840 to support the Russian economy, aided very
much in the reforestation drive. Its offices
existed only in Russian populated areas however,
and not in Lithuania or the Polish Kingdom.
24. Management of the Peasant Forests
The forests of the former serfs were supervised from
1802-1873 by a special institution which regulated
the life of the peasants. Those forests located in
Russia proper got some supervision from Russian forestry
officials. In 1873, a special law allotted certain forest
areas to the peasants; in European Russia a total of
16,500,000 hectares of former state forest land. The
peasants in Lithuania received 84,700 hectares at this
time, of which 18,700 hectares were regular forest and
the rest (66 thousand hectares) brush and undergrowth
to be used for agricultural purposes. These forests
were soon exhausted and their timber sold, sometimes
very cheaply. By 1888, they were completely devastated.
A few, particularly those in areas of shifting sands,
were put under supervision for reforestation but most
were not affected by the law of 1888.(122)
25. Conclusion
While forestry in Russia proper, especially in Asiatic
Russia and the northern portions of European Russia, was
extensive, it vas comparatively intensive and well
organized in Lithuania. Even private forests (excluding
peasant forests) were on a proper, if not highly productive,
basis after 1888, and were steadily improving. The total
production and value of wood steadily increased and a real
hope for future progress existed. The Russians left to
their successors (the German Army) in Lithuania, some well
ordered forest stands, especially in the state forests,
with a high percentage of ripe and mature trees.
PART II, CHAPTER I, PARAGRAPH B
(1) The name, Province of Lithuania, here applies to the three government
areas of Vilno, Kaunas, and Suvalki which were entirely (Kaunas) or partially
(Vilno, Suvalki) included in the later Republic of Lithuania (1918-39).
(2) Afanasyev, "Kovenskaya Gubernia", 1861, p 22
(3) "Lietuvos Misky Departmento Metrastis", 1937, p 9 (hereafter LMDM)
(4) Welhorski, W L. "Polska a Litwa", 1947, p 69-101
(5) Surozh, 1908
- 69 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(6) Ibid, II, p 148
(7) Buchholz, E, "Die Wald u Holzwirtschaft des Ostraumes", 1943, p 66-69
(8) Klimas, "Lietuvos Zemes Valdymas", 1918, p 41
(9) Buchholz, p 71
(10) Nekhoroshev, 1916, "Lesnoyedelo pr' Krivosheine", p 8-12
(11) Surozh, I, 103, Desiatina - were converted into hectares as
follows -- 1 Desiatina = 1.1 hectares (actual value 1.09)
(12) State or national forests were administered by the Ministry of Agriculture
and State Properties. Crown forests, maintained to support the royal
family, were administered by special institution.
(13) Surozh, III/6
(14) "Statistikos Zinios Apie Lietuva iki, 1914", p 85, 96
(15) Surozh, p i/lo6
(16) Ibid
(17) "Statistikos, Zinios Apie Lietuva iki, 1914"
(18) Assuming that the average production in fest meters per hectare was 3.5 -- author
(19) Afanasyev, 1861, p 391
(20) Surozh, 1/115
(21) Ibid, 11/12
(22) Ibid, 131-142
(23) There is an unexplained discrepancy between the figures given for Vilno
in this table and those given earlier of 43,400 hectares -- author
(24) Surozh, 143-144
(25) Ibid, 1908, 1/143
(26) "Statisticheskii atlas Verekha", 1878
(27) author's opinion
(28) Surozh, 1908, p 144
(29) Ibid, p 144-145
(30) "Neudammer Forstliches Lehrbuch", Vol 4, 1955, p 654
(31) "Miskininku Kalendorins", 1940, Augumo Lenteles, P 31
(32) Surozh, 1908, 11/148
(33) "Miskininku Kalendorius", 1940
(34) Figures taken from Russian sources -- author
(35) Surozh, 11/149
- 70 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(36) Ibid, 11/150
(37) Ibid, 11/154
(38) Ustav Lesnoi, 1910, Vol 2, p 817-819
(39) A territory was composed of a varying number of government areas
which made up a unified Whole of one sort or another. For example,
the Lithuanian Province was a special economic unit.
(4o) surozh, 1908, 11/17
(41) Nekhoroshev, 1916, p 20
(42) Koreiva, "Vilenskaya Gubernia", 1861
Afanasyev, 1861
(43) Surozh, 11/165
(44) surozh, 1908, 11/153
(45) Ibid, 11/170
(46) Ibid, 11/143
(47) Ibidem, II/144
(48) Ibid
(49) Nekhoroshev, "Lesnoie Delo", 1916, 21-22
(5o) Ibid, p 15
(51) "Lietuvos Statistika", 1914
(52) Buchholz, 1943, p 72
(53) Nekhoroshev, 1916, p 18
Surozh, I1/164
(54) Nekhoroshev, 1916, p 18
(55) Surozh, 1/43-57
(56) Nekhoroshev, p 46-47
(57) Koreiva, 1861, p 478
(58) Surozh, II/18, 153, 155
(59) Koreiva, p 478
(60) Surozh, III/6
(61) Ibid, 11/153
(62) Ibid, 111/93, 11/18
(63) Ibid, 11/18
(64) Ibid
(65) Ibid, 11/20
(66) Ibid, 1/21
71
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(67) Ibid, 11/23
(68) Ibid, 11/155
(69) Ibid, 11/158
(70) Ustav Lesnoi, 1910, Vol 2, p 250
(71) Surozh, 1908, 11/127
(72) Ustav Lesnoi, II, 597
(73) Surozh, 1908, 11/229
(74) Ibid, 11/18, 87
(75) Ibid, 11/48
(76) Author's opinion as a result of his experiences from 1918-40
(77) Ustav Lesnoi, 1910, 1/317-318, 148-153
(78) Nekhoroshev, p 11
(79) Ustav Lesnoi, 1/67
(80) Surozh, 11/47
(81) Afanasyev, 1861, 254-255
(82) Nekhoroshev, 1916, 47
(83) Afanasyev, p 388
(84) Surozh, 11/32
(85) Ibid, 11/34
(86) Ibid
(87) "Statisticheskii Lesnoi Atlas", P Verikha and A Materna, 1878
(88) "Lietuvos Z U Statistika Pries Didigi Kara", p 96-97
(89) surozh, 11/34
(90) Ibid
(91) Ibid, 11/46
(92) Nekhoroshev, p 43
(93) Ordinatsia Pashch, 1641, Vilno, 1871
(94) Surozh, 11/52
(95) Matulionis, "Lietuvos Miskait Podidziogo/Kara", Visa Lietuva, 1922
(96) Surozh, 11/52
(97) Ibid
- 72 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
 Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4
(98) Ibid, 11/53
(99) Ustav Lesnoi, 1/125
(100) Jankauskas, M., "Maumedziai Lietuvos, TSR", 195+
(101) Ibid
(102) Surozh, I1/53-54
(103) Ibid, 11/55
(104) Ibid, 11/155-156
(105) Nekhoroshev, p 50
(106) Surozh, 11/51
(107) Ibid
(108) Ibid, II/64
(109) Nekhoroshev, 4+8
(110) Surozh, 11/65
(111) Nekhoroshev, p 50
(112) Author's estimate
Musy Girios, 1933, P 477
(113) Surozh, II/156
(114+) Ibid, 11/78
(115) Nekhoroshev, 37-38
(116) Mortensen, 1926, 144
(117) Surozh, 11/83
(118) Ibid
(119) Ibid, 11/90 - 1,850,000 rubles were spent on state logging
operations alone.
(120) Ibid, 11/109-110
(121) Ibid
(122) Ibid, 11/107
- 73 -
Approved For Release 2008/04/07: CIA-RDP80T00246AO02800010006-4