Wood-friendly

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wood prerogatives was from the Middle Ages until the late 19th century , the gratuitous right to use the forest for timber production.

Basis and Limits of the Just

The wood fair was understood by the legal doctrine and the judiciary predominantly as an easement , partly also a real burden was seen connected with it.

Exercise of rights

The wood righteous could include various rights to exercise, for example:

  • Building and wood-based or timber-compliant,
  • Firewood justice,
  • Stick-wood-legal,
  • Camp justice,
  • People who are justified in reading, rubbing or rubbish,
  • Windfall Justice,
  • Wooden broom traveler's rightful,

and others more. The wood fair can also partially refer to certain types of wood (for example only softwood ) or only to certain parts of the tree (for example only the branches ), a certain quality of the wood (example: due to the age of the tree) or a certain amount in the year (quantity criterion).

Obligated

The obligated person from the wood justice (usually the forest owner) was strictly prohibited from doing anything or not doing anything that would permanently impair the wood justice. As a rule, however, he was not obliged to take an active part (for example to replant trees).

Authorized person

The authorized person was basically prohibited from actively changing the vegetation and thereby arbitrarily expanding the legal structure at the expense of the obliged entity. The beneficiary could be an individual or one or more municipalities.

Example: building and factory timber

The building and timber law prohibits the forest owner:

  • taking too much wood from the forest yourself, so that the offspring is not guaranteed,
  • only to replant fast-growing wood, so that sustainable management is not guaranteed and
  • to undertake unreasonable clearing ( desertification ).

Criticism of the legal institution of the wood justice

Due to the fact that the wood justice came from ancient times and in many cases there were no written records about the type and scope of the law, there were repeated misunderstandings and legal proceedings:

Karl Friedrich Schenck pointed out that due to the burden and the envy ( the negative feeling of having to cultivate for others, (...) having to share the fruits of diligence with you ... ) the obligated party often had no interest in proper forest management . Each party also endeavored to secure its share as quickly as possible, so that sustainable management was not given. In the case of the indeterminate wood-justified persons, a tendency to waste wood was also observed among those entitled.

As a result, proper management of the forest continued to decline, to the detriment of both parties. Even the forest authorities have often given up and in many cases have already seen it as positive if the use of the forest has not deteriorated even further.

From this experience, Karl Friedrich Schenck draws the conclusion that only a definitive replacement of the wood-based ones would enable an improvement in forest use in Germany.

Other righteous

For example, they are related to, but not identical to, the wood-justice

  • the use of the fruits and seeds of the trees,
  • the use of leaves and needles of the trees by stripping and / or collecting (mostly as fodder or bedding for the livestock ),
  • peeling off the bark of trees after felling,
  • collect the sap or tree resin to win,
  • To collect sponges from the tree bark,
  • let the bees swarm in the forest and collect the honey .

See also

literature

  • Karl Friedrich Schenck : Need of the people's economy for their current standpoint in most of the German federal states . Stuttgart 1831.
  • Ulrich Hübner (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Bernhard Großfeld for his 65th birthday . Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg 1999, ISBN 3-8005-1207-6 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Also wood justice, logging justice, right to deed and the like.
  2. ↑ Schenck (1831), p. 409 f.
  3. ↑ See for example: Ulrich Hübner (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Bernhard Großfeld for his 65th birthday . Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg 1999, ISBN 3-8005-1207-6 , p. 434 ff. See also: Clemens Bruckner (Hrsg.): Zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Regierungsbezirks Aachen . Rheinisch-Westfälischen Wirtschaftsarchiv, Cologne 1967, p. 48, 319.
  4. ↑ Schenck (1831), p. 405 f.
  5. ↑ Schenck (1831), p. 414 f.