being imported from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Even so, it is very doubtful that the timber

resources of the island would have been able to support ship-building for much longer at the high levels it had reached in the 1860s and 18705. There is certainly testimony in the surviving records to the effect that the timber was viewed by many persons as close to running out: to the few cited by De Jong and Moore, others may be added from statements made to the Land Commissions of 1860 and 1875, indicating that even in the west of the province, the ‘Iumbermen’ had been ’through' many of the lots — there is testimony to this effect for lots 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 35 and 36702. And any way, if the industry had had to rely on imports of wood from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for its continuance, it would no longer have had a connection with the island’s forests — nor would it have contributed to the income of local farmers in the supplying of timber.

Conclusions ~ In terms of its effect on the forest, ship—building involved the selective removal of the larger trees of particular species, especially pine, black spruce (presumably also red spruce, which is

702 Land Commission (1860): for Lot 3: John McKay: “The forest on our lands has been culled already"; Mr. Hockin: “The best of the timber is culled off‘; Lot 7: Strang Hart: “The timber has been culled off the land, and the sawmills are now nearly idle"; Lot 14: Mr. Perry: “nearly all the timber is gone“; Lot 35: John Moynagh: “the wood is all gone".

Land Commission (1875): for Lot 7: John Cocheran: “The lumber is the most that is any use about it, and that is almost all taken off"; Peter Doyle “The lumber has been pretty well taken off"; Lot 9: Felix McKinnon: ”The wood has been cut off. Lumbermen have been on it from my first recollection. There is but very little lumber now" — though this seems not to have been true of the whole lot: Robert Holton: “There is lumber on some parts not yet taken"; and Donald McPhee: “There is some lumber on [the odd hillsl"; Lot 10: Joseph Mooreshead: “The timber has been taken off [the vacant land]" — though James Gregg said "there is some lumber on it that is of some value"; Lot 12: James Warburton: “There is a great deal of land on Lot 12 that was formerly good timber land"; Albert Williams: "there has been a good deal of timber but the ship-builders have exhausted it"; William Gregg: “the medium land had good timber once"; Lot 13: David Sullivan: "The [5000 acres of] vacant land is mostly culled. There is some good timber on it and some not so good, it is a great deal culled". However, his evidence conflicts with that of several witnesses (the proprietor John Yeo, and his brother-in-law William Richards, as well as George Bollum and Donald McLean) who claimed there were still “large quantities of wood suitable for ship-building” on the 5,000 acres; Lot 16: Donald Campbell: "The timber is stripped off [a block of vacant land of 2000 acres], Any timber that was any size was taken off before"; Lot 35: Patrick Cox: “The timber on my land is all culled by the ship-builders there is scarcely any ship timber there noW‘; Lot 36: H. Braddock: “The farm was valuable when ship-building was going on and timber plenty There is no ship-building there now."

105

unlikely to have been distinguished from black), yellow birch and tamarack. Given the high output that the industry reached in the 18605 and 18705 there must have been considerable pressure on whatever remained of these tree species, and we have noted evidence above to indicate that they were coming into short supply.

In conclusion, there is considerable scope for future research on the effect of ship-building on the forests of the island. As noted above, the inspection reports of the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping contain a rich mine of information on the various wood-types used in island-built ships. Using these reports it should be possible to estimate the amount of wood of each type that went into the construction of each vessel, and to extrapolate such information to all of the 4,402 vessels that De Jong and Moore (1994) caICUlate to have been built on the island between 1787 and 1920. To serve as a simplified example: from data in De Jong & Moore, I calculate that the 510 three—masted vessels (407 barques, 37 barquentines and 66 ships) built on Prince Edward Island between 1800 and 1880 would have required 1,530 masts, each made up of either two or three tree trunks. Assuming these to have been either spruce or pine, then between 3,060 and 4,590 spruce and pine trees would have been required to provide the masts for these vessels. Given more precise information on the mast sizes for the various vessel types, the range in the estimate could be narrowed considerably — th0ugh in the later years we should be aware that some of these masts would have been imported. Many additional pine and spruce trees would also have been required for the spars and yards of these same vessels. No one has attempted to carry out such an analysis for the island, and I do not know whether it has been attempted for other parts of Canada. Until such data is available it is difficult to assess precisely the effect of shipbuilding on the forests of the island. Even so, we may conclude that the industry must have had a considerable impact on a narrow range of species, directed as it was at the best specimens of these, and at a time when they were already under extensive pressure from other competing uses, as well as from destructive forces.