these species are common relatively fast-growing early successional trees (that is, assuming the ’spruce’ to have been white spruce), and they would have become more prevalent as a result of the high levels of disturbance associated not only with forest clearance, but also with the after- effects of forest fires and the timber extraction procedures that had accompanied European settlement.488 However, I do not have at hand any productivity data for these tree species in second-growth woodland on upland sites, which is what is needed to answer this question, and I do not know whether in fact such data is readily available. However, if we turn to the historical records, we find some evidence suggesting that many farmers were in fact able to meet their fencing needs from their own woodlots. Firstly, there is the basic historical observation that island farmers throughout the colonial and post- Confederation periods were apparently able to maintain their field boundaries using wooden fences without, as far as I am aware, having to import fencing materials from off the island — and this situation continued until the arrival of the post-and-wire fences in the early decades of the twentieth century, which provided an alternative form of fencing that required far less wood. Secondly, a statement made to the Land Commission of 1860 suggests that on most farms the fencing supply was being met by the farm woodlot: William McGowan, representing the tenants of Lots 44 and 45 (the two townships on either side of Souris), in response to a question from one of the commissioners who had asked whether ”the tenant farmers of the island would not be better off if they had smaller farms”, replied: ”No; a man must procure firewood and fence rails off his farm. Had he only a few acres these necessaries would soon be exhausted”. Clearly, his answer implies that the farm woodlots were able to supply these ’necessaries’, provided that the farm was of the standard 100 acre size or so, with a large proportion of the farm being maintained as a woodlot. However, at the same time, other evidence collected by the same Commission indicates that some farmers were experiencing ’difficulties’ in obtaining fence poles from their own lands: Bartholomew LeLacheur, a

433 The association of fencing materials with the forest disturbance resulting from settlement is evident in the statement of H. Braddock of Scotchfort, Lot 36 to the Land Commission (1875), when he said that: “the second growth of fir and spruce is not valuable for anything except fencing"; and in the reference of [Lawson] (1877- 1878) to “fine fir groves so suitable for fence poles“ growing on land once occupied by the “French clearings' near Vernon River bridge.

74

delegate from Lot 64 (Le. the township on the south side of Murray Harbour), said that ”on account of the destruction of the forest years ago” (damaging forest fires had in fact occurred in this area, as we have seen), ”fence poles and firewood could not be easily obtained” by the tenant farmers of the township. And further evidence for the scarcity of fencing, at least on some farms, is revealed by the assertion of George W. DeBlois, agent for the very large Cunard and Sulivan estates, that he allowed tenants who had no ’fence-poles’ on their own land (as well as also no firewood) to take these materials from ’unoccupied' land in the township — though when a specific example was presented to the contrary, he said that such a ‘privilege’ was a 'matter of favor’ and was not granted to everyone. As in the example from Lot 64, his assertion is clear evidence that there were some farmers who did not have an adequate supply of fencing materials on their own farms. If such persons could not acquire these elsewhere through their own labour, there was, for those who had the means, always the option of buying fencing materials. 489

In parts of the west of the island the situation with respect to the supply of fencing materials was somewhat different from the upland hardwood areas just discussed. Firstly, there was, as we have seen earlier, a great deal of poor land — ’barrens’ and ’swamps’ — especially in the area between Cascumpec Bay and Egmont Bay, which was considered totally unsuitable for forest clearance and farming.490 lt is not by chance that much of the evidence submitted to the Land Commission of 1875 concerns the poor land in this area, since, due to its barrenness, much of it was still in the ownership of the large proprietors, and so fell within the remit of the Commission’s investigation. However, many of the trees on this poor land were viewed as suitable — in some cases ideal — for fencing purposes. Especially important was the presence in this region of white cedar in relatively large amounts, the fencing value of which was recognized, as we have seen, by most of the local farmers in this area. But it is also evident that the spruce trees that occurred on these poorer ’barren’ lands — the species could

‘89 Henry Douse, a landlord, in evidence to the Land

Commission (1875), said that fence poles were sold at 10 shillings a hundred, while Donald McPhee of Lot 9 had told the Commission that cut cedar posts cost about 8 cents ‘on the spot'. 49° See the many comments to this effect by local farmers from Lots 7, 9, 10, 12 and 16 that were recorded by the Land Commission (1875).