terms limited, and confined to a small and localised 
     
     part of the island along some of the major bays, 
     
     estuaries and rivers, especially those that had 
     
     areas of salt-marsh that could be drained for 
     
     agricultural use. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Forest exploitation — For the same reasons the 
     
     exploitation of the island’s timber stocks by the 
     
     local population (for use in building, fencing, boat- 
     
     building and firewood) was also in overall terms 
     
     limited, and likely to have been mostly near the 
     
     settlement areas. 
     
    
   
   
    
     There were in addition two shipments of timber 
     
     sent from the island to France in the 17205. In 
     
     overall terms however, these were negligible in 
     
     amount and seem to have consisted of only one 
     
     kind of tree: pine (probably all red pine) to be used 
     
     for masts and planks. It is evident that the failure 
     
     of the Marine to exploit the timber resources of the 
     
     island was due to a combination of prejudice and 
     
     parsimony. The department did not have the 
     
     money to invest in the extensive and continuing 
     
     exploitation of the island's timber resource, and 
     
     anyway considered the nature and quality of the 
     
     island's timber stock such as to make it of minor 
     
     interest to them, i.e. what oak there was — and 
     
     there seems to have been very little, was the 
     
     inferior red oak, while the red pine proved to have 
     
     imperfections that came up against the prejudices 
     
     and standards of the naval inspectors in France. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Forest change — It is thus evident that the changes 
     
     in the forests of the island due to their exploitation 
     
     and utilisation by the French were slight. In fact 
     
     the most important legacy of the French regime 
     
     was the effect of the two major forest fires that 
     
     occurred in the north-east of the island, which, 
     
     given their occurrence near the main settlement 
     
     area at Saint-Pierre, may well have been human- 
     
     caused. One or other of these fires burned over a 
     
     forested area that had previously been reported to 
     
     contain the best pine mast resource on the island. 
     
     They also seem to have affected a far larger area 
     
     and must have resulted in the loss of a much 
     
     larger volume of timber than that removed as a 
     
     result of land clearance and timber utilisation. They 
     
     also left a legacy that was to be evident for a long 
     
     time and which was still receiving mention in 
     
     British records even eighty years later. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Although the evidence from the records is limited, 
     
     it seems that the French may have also had a 
     
     detrimental impact on some of the animal 
     
     populations of the forests, especially the larger 
     
     mammals such as the caribou and the wolf. 
     
    
   
   
    
     29 
     
    
   
   
    
     Attitudes — Not surprisingly, the records indicate 
     
     that the basic attitude to the forest was utilitarian, 
     
     with the forest being viewed entirely as a source 
     
     of building wood, masts, firewood, and other 
     
     materials to be exploited and utilised. At the same 
     
     time some persons (including notably the minister 
     
     of the Marine in France) were also aware of the 
     
     need to conserve this resource for the use of 
     
     future generations, though it seems that the 
     
     conservation measures proposed by the minister 
     
     were never put into practice. 
     
    
   
   
    
     In conclusion, we may say that apart from the 
     
     drastic and long-lasting effects of the two major 
     
     forest fires, the imprint of the French on the 
     
     forests of the island was relatively small and 
     
     localised. However, the process of forest alteration 
     
     and destruction had clearly been set in train. Thus 
     
     what the British acquired in 1758 was not a clean 
     
     slate with a pristine forest. The legacy of thirty- 
     
     eight years of French colonisation was very 
     
     evident — intensively in the areas in and around the 
     
     settlements, extensively (and as severe) in the 
     
     large area in the north-east that had been ravaged 
     
     by fire. 
     
    
   
   
    
     REFERENCES 
     
    
   
   
    
     Anon. (unknown date) Inventaire des Archives des 
     
     Colonies. (Extrait des rapports sur les Archives 
     
     Canadiennes). [A catalogue at the CEA, Université 
     
     de Moncton.] 
     
    
   
   
    
     Anon. (1975) Inventaire Généra/ des Sources 
     
     Documentaires sur les Acadiens. Premier Tome. Le 
     
     Centre d’Etudes Acadiennes, Université de 
     
     Moncton. Editions d’Acadie. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Anon. (1995) Silvicu/tura/ Terms in Canada. (2nd 
     
    
   
   
    
     ed.) Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources 
     
     Canada. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Arsenault, G. (2001) Honouring the memory of 
     
     Francois Douville. The Guardian, 13 July 2001. 
     
     Charlottetown, P.E.l. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Bamford, P. W. (1955) French forest legislation 
     
     and administration, 1660-1789. Agricultural 
     
     History, 29: 97-107. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Bamford, P. W. (1956) Forests and French Sea 
     
     Power 1660-1789. University of Toronto Press. 
     
    
   
   
    
     Clark, A. H. (1959) Three Centuries and the Island. 
     
     University of Toronto Press.