The more remarkable of the native animals, greatly contributed, in the early settlement of the island, to its commerce, as well as the supply of some of the necessary articles of winter clothing to its inhabitants. Among these, the bears, foxes, otters, martins, minks, were the most useful.

We may wonder whether in the early British period the island’s fur-trade ever had the importance that Hill ascribes to it.”5AHowever, he then goes on to comment on the fur trade of his own day and in so doing, highlights the role of the native Mi’kmaq:

The red fox—skin is an article of commerce. Foxes are chiefly shot or trapped by the lndians, and their skins

exported to England by the resident merchants. ”6

This importance of the Mi'kmaq in the hunting of the island’s native fauna is evident from a number of other sources.147 In 1776 Walter Patterson, the island’s first governor, sent a letter to a government minister in England‘“, in which he makes reference to a ”Set of New England Adventurers" bartering with the Indians for their "Furs and Peltry”, giving them in return ”Adulterated Rum and some Vile Mixtures in Imitation of Wine”. However, though the title of his letter is ”Observations on the Island of St. John in the Gulf of St. Lawrence”, the letter is also concerned with the ’trade' of the whole Gulf area, and we thus cannot be certain that the above events, if they did in fact happen, had occurred on the island - for, since Patterson was fully aware of the rebellion that was breaking out

”5‘ I note that Walter Johnstone (1823) (p. 60, not extracted),

thinking that he might profit from the island's “fur trade", took ‘instructions' in It at Charlottetown. However, he found that none of the settlers along the road between the town and Wood Islands had any “fox-skins nor other furs, as [he] had been led to expect", and so ended any idea he had of venturing into the fur trade.

“6 [Cambridge] (1796?) also says that “skins and furs” were sent

to England.

“7 Since the completion of my earlier French period report (Sobey 2002) I have come across two new French period references concerning the involvement of the Mi’kmaq in the fur trade of the island: (1) Louis-Auguste Rossel. an officer aboard a warship in the French squadron at Louisbourg in 1757, wrote in his journal that "the Indians of He Saint-Jean usually come to Louisbourg in August and September to sell their animal pelts which brings them a very good profit.“ This was probably the practice throughout the French period, though this is the only reference to it so far found. [The reference (courtesy of Earle Lockerby) is: "Journal de ma Campagne a l‘lle Royale (1757)," Rapport de I'Archiviste de la Province de Quebec 1931/32, Quebec, 1932, p. 381.] (2) Jean- Pierre Roma in his long letter written to the minister from Martinique (11 March to 14 May 1750), makes reference to “la chasse aux martres [i.e. marten trapping] on the island, saying that it should be reserved to the Indians to enable them to procure their needs. [Reference: PAC, AC, CHB, Vol. 29; I found the reference in the typescript copy at UPEI: Pierre Margry, Vol. 4, p. 73.}

“8 Walter Patterson to George Sackville, Lord Germain (first lord

of trade, and secretary of state for America) [1776], “Observations on the Island of St. John in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, briefly setting forth the Advantages which must Arise from the Settlement of it to Great Britain p. 3. Germain papers, Clements Library. University of Michigan.

in the American colonies to the south at that very time, it is possible that he may have been exaggerating the role of the New England traders in intervening in the fur-trade, so as to strengthen his case for greater expenditure on the island by the British authorities.

Even so, this connection between the hunting of the native mammals and the aboriginal peoples of the island receives support from some later island sources: Anon. (1818), Johnstone (1822) and MacGregor (1828) referred to the skills of the Mi’kmaq in the hunting of bears (which we know to have been a traditional Mi’kmaq food‘“), while Anon. (1818) also mentioned their role in catching game (including ’partridge'l for the Charlottetown market‘so, and Hill (1819) said that they sold 'wildfowl’ to the inhabitants at a very low price.151 And it seems that the European settlers, when they themselves became directly involved in exploiting the native fauna, learned many of their

techniques from the native hunters and trappersm.

What impact did the trapping and hunting for their furs have on the animal populations? We know that four of these fur-bearers became extinct on the island: the marten, otter, lynx and bear, and it w0uld seem that the extinction of two of these, the otter and the marten, can only be due to their being killed for their furs. It is not that there was a deliberate policy to exterminate either species — in fact because of their valuable furs they were considered beneficial members of the native fauna, but no effort was made to prevent their extinction. Thus, there were no legal restrictions on the trapping and shooting of any of the fur-bearers, neither on the numbers trapped, nor seasonal restrictions'.52AThough habitat loss due to the destruction of much of the island’s forests will have contributed to the decline of the marten, it is very likely that it could still have survived in the remaining forests had there not been the

“9 For example, see the account of Nicholas Denys of 1672 (in

Ganong 1908, p. 597), in which the bear is recorded as one oftheir principal food animals.

‘5" Selkirk (1803) (p. 15, not extracted) also met a Mi’kmaq man who he wrote “hunts and fishes for the Charlottetown market".

151 I could not find any other references to the skills of the Mi’kmaq at hunting or trapping the forest animals or birds, though Curtis (1775) mentions their skills in wild-fowling, and Stewart (1806) and MacGregor (1828) at fishing.

‘52 An explicit example is given by Johnstone (1822), but it is implied by others in their description of methods of catching the various fauna (e.g. Curtis 1775; Stewart 1806: MacGregor 1828).

152‘ I have since discovered that at a very late date (7 June 1879)

the House of Assembly passed an “Act for the protection of Game and Fur-bearing Animals" (42 Victoria, Cap. 7), which, among other things, restricted the season for taking “Muskrat, Martin, or Otter" to between 1 November and 1 May. (Glen, W. M. (ed) (1995) Prince Edward Island Wildlife Legislation: 1780-1951. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, Charlottetown, P. E. I]

256