Maple Leaves Forever is proud to present this series of posts detailing the history of roadside tree planting in Ontario, researched and written by Terry Schwan, R.P.F. The full essay will be released in its entirety in Fall 2021.

Terry Schwan is a semi-retired forest consultant. Born in Hanover, he served as District Forester in Guelph for the Ministry of Natural Resources for 17 years. One of his current projects involves researching and delivering forest history tours. He was winner of the Maple Leaves Forever / Ontario Envirothon Leadership Award in 2020.

Maple Leaves Forever thanks Terry warmly for this detailed and informative essay.

Changing Regimes and the Ontario Tree Planting Act of 1896.

Following the death of Phipps in early 1894 the clerk position was filled for three months by the Hon. C. F. Fraser. Unfortunately, he died after three months in office. The position remained unfilled until Thomas Southworth was appointed as Clerk of Bureau of Forestry in 1895. The position was moved to the Crown Lands Department from Agriculture [1] One of Southworth’s first duties was to review and provide a detailed analysis of the effectiveness of the 1883 Act. The Act had been in full operation from 1886 to 1894. (Three years were required to pass before any payment of bonuses.) Southworth had sent letters to 433 townships and 228 other municipalities to gather information with regard to tree planting. A large proportion did not reply and many could not provide accurate information. Only 49 municipalities including 42 townships had taken advantage of the program. During that time $4,808.78 was paid out, less than 10 percent of the original $50,000 allocated for the Ontario Tree Planting Fund.[2]

As well, 17 townships, 21 cities, towns and villages had adopted a by-law but no claims for bonuses had been forwarded. Southworth reported, however, a “good deal” of planting had been done in these municipalities. Based on these reports, he estimated about 75,000 trees had been planted as a result of the Act. He compared this to the state of Kansas where about a million and a half trees were planted annually.

Southworth asked municipalities to describe their satisfaction of the system and if they would continue to make use of the Act. Thirty-eight of townships responded. Eleven had repealed their by-law. Some stated the Act was unpopular, ten were indifferent and not likely to continue and nine were satisfied and anticipated further claims under it.

Southworth identified a number of reasons why the Act was not generally adopted and why it failed to work to the satisfaction of the municipalities. Reasons were many and various and with many similarities to today’s attitudes. They included:

• The delay of three years which must elapse between planting and the receipt of the government bonus;
• Objections on the part of those who do not propose to take advantage of the Act, to the outlay of public money in what they regard as a private benefit;
• The discouragements sustained by many who have planted trees on the highway from the destruction by cattle and the want of adequate protection;
• The desire of many landowners to retain full control of the trees planted by them, with power to cut them down as they see fit, which they would lose by accepting the bonus;
• The preference among many who set out trees, for location, modes of planting, etc., not in accordance with the Act;
• Lack of information in many cases as to the details or even the existence of the Act
• The extent of roadside planting carried on irrespective of legislation, which in many localities renders the Act superfluous, and
• Objectives to roadside trees, more especially in localities where the roads are narrow and the soil heavy, on the grounds that their shade keeps the road wet and injures the crops.

Southworth concluded the objections as indicative of public opinion. He stated the 1883 Act had ‘fallen far short of realizing the expectations entertained at its adoption’. He further recommended that the Province repeal the section that paid one-half the bonus.

In 1896, another Act was passed named An Act revising and consolidating the Acts to Encourage the Planting and Growing of Trees, or in short, The Ontario Tree Planting Act, 1896. Southworth’s recommendations were included (he may have drafted the text), based on his analysis of why the 1883 Act was not widely accepted[3].

The 1896 Act allowed the landowner to have ownership of planted roadside trees. Recall that the previous acts also allowed landowners ownership of trees but the 1883 Act was amended a year later to have municipalities own the trees. But more importantly, the new Act determined that all roadside trees Province-wide (not only trees planted under the legislation) be owned by the landowner. In other changes, the province removed the clause paying municipalities one half of the bonus; municipalities had the right of refund for bonuses paid under the former Act; municipalities no longer had to report to the Province; and they were not required to pay bonuses where trees were planted less than 15 feet apart. Otherwise, many provisions were repeated word-for-word from the earlier Act. Penalties for injuring planted trees continued as before. The Act allowed Municipalities to pass by-laws similar to the 1883 Act including allowing them to pay out bonuses not more than 25 cents.

The program carried on to 1901 with retroactive payments, although in decreasing numbers with none in 1897. There were 43,858 trees planted in 51 townships in 23 counties under the Program. As indicated in Table 1, $5,482.22 was reimbursed to the municipalities for one half of the value of trees planted [4].

Pilkington in Wellington County (now one half of the Town of Mapleton) was the single largest municipal subscriber with 3,620 trees reimbursed. Pilkington passed a by-law in December 1884 and appointed the township clerk, Robert Cromar, as “inspector of tree planting” at the rate of two dollars per day while employed.[5] The most subscribers by county were in Lincoln County (see note in Table 1) with 6,653 trees followed by Oxford, Ontario (now Durham Region) and Brant.  Every county in southwestern and central Ontario had at least one municipality involved in the program. In eastern Ontario, only Oxford Township in Grenville and Kingston participated, and only to a small degree.

*Ontario County (now Durham Region) / Lincoln County (now Grimsby, Lincoln, West Lincoln, St. Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake) / Welland County is south part of Niagara Region

Southworth also surveyed those municipalities where tree planting had occurred independent of the Provincial inducements, whether “trees been planted along highways, … and with what success”, and “what species flourished best…”[6]. He found that planting of forest trees along highways and on farm boundaries “has been undertaken to a fair or considerable extent in 152 townships, and to a small extent in 73 others. Fifty-four other municipalities reported no planting of that kind had been done. Some of this is due to newly settled areas or areas with heavy natural growth of trees along roadsides. He found planting failures amounted to a small percentage and usually due to drought in the season of planting. Most municipalities were satisfied with the result of tree planting. There were some concerns that crops would not grow under the shade of mature trees. In the large majority of cases, maple was the most popular species, and soft maple was slightly more popular than hard maple. Elm was also used. Spruce, then cedar were the popular evergreens.

The countryside was changing. Southworth, in his 1898 report, stated “The appeals made to farmers… has not been unheeded. Though but few plantations of any size have been laid out, yet, in innumerable instances windbreaks and lines of forest trees along roads and fences are seen…. The traveller… can hardly fail to note the pleasing effects of extensive farm and roadside planting in restoring something of the charm of a well wooded country”.[7]

In 1904, the first nursery was established at the Ontario Agriculture College in Guelph under the supervision of E. J. Zavitz, newly hired by the Department of Agriculture. Its expressed object was to provide planting stock to farmers interested in improving their woodlands.[8]. In the same document Judson Clark, the newly appointed Provincial Forester, noted the “unprecedented” demand for suitable trees for planting. He stated that due to this demand “exorbitant prices” were asked for planting stock by the few nurseries able to supply seedlings – for white pine $15 to $45 per thousand for three year-once-transplanted stock – that he calculated could be produced on a large scale for $3 per thousand. Nurseries at the time produced stock that sold in the dozens or hundreds rather than in the thousands. He wrote a long essay on “The propagation of trees by farmers”. He described the process from collecting, care and planting of tree seed, and the transplanting and after care of small quantities for farm purposes. Clark provided special guidelines for shade trees similar to what had been described earlier.[9] .

However, it was always noted that trees from the Forestry Department were to be used for forest plantations on waste lands or poor agriculture land and not for roadside or ornamental plantings. As well, Norway Spruce for hedges or windbreaks was not supplied by the Department.[10]

In 1913, An Act to encourage the Planting and Growing of Trees and its short title The Tree Planting Act was passed. It was more of a housekeeping Act with basically the same language as the 1896 Act but more modernized to reflect other new legislation [11]. However, in 1927 the Act was rewritten under the same title with two clauses to include only boundary trees and the penalty for damaging them [12].

Sadly, many roadside trees have been lost to reasons other than age. Modernization of roads have taken their toll. Roads have been widened from one chain (about 20 metres), ditching built and hydro infrastructure has deformed the shape of trees.

While The Ontario Tree Planting Act of 1883 may not have had the initial desired success, it and with the promotion of Phipps started a successful progression and demand for trees on the destroyed once treeless landscape in southern Ontario. The majority of the trees that were planted through the Ontario Tree Planting Act, and subsequent programs were probably locally sourced native trees and therefore well adapted to the condition at the time and may be the reason for high survival rates. 

Government and municipal incentives for planting trees continuing on to the present. While there is no similar focused program that is funded by the government for roadside planting in Ontario today some municipalities have rejuvenated roadside planting programs. The Ministry of Transport plants roadside trees. 

As described by Phipps in the opening paragraph roadside trees contribute to the beauty of the landscape and have become part of our cultural heritage.

Written and Researched by Terry Schwan, R.P.F.

Citations:

[1]  Lambert, R. S., Renewing Nature’s Wealth. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. 1967.

[2] Ontario. Report of the Clerk of Forestry 1896. Sessional Paper No. 40. 1896.  https://archive.org/details/n07ontariosession28ontauoft/page/n729/mode/2up

[3] Statutes of Ontario. VIC 59.  Chap. 60. The Ontario Tree Planting Act. 1896.1896. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112204260626&view=2up&seq=227&q1=tree

[4]  Public Accounts were referenced from the years 1885 to 1901 inclusively to complete Table 1.

[5] Pilkington Twp. By-laws 1867-1897, 1971. County of Wellington Archives. Microfilm A1982.73.

[6] Ontario. Report of the Clerk of Forestry 1896. Sessional Paper No. 40. 1896.  https://archive.org/details/n07ontariosession28ontauoft/page/n729/mode/2up

[7] Ontario. Report of the Clerk of Forestry 1898. Sessional Paper No. 34. 1898. p. 2. https://archive.org/details/n08ontariosession30ontauoft/page/n395/mode/2up

[8] Ontario. Annual Report of Bureau of Forestry. 1904. Sessional Paper 4 1904. p. 7.
https://archive.org/details/n01ontariosession37ontauoft/page/n705/mode/2up

[9] Ibid. p. 55-56.

[10] Ontario. Report of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines for 1913. Circular #8. 1914. p 96.

[11] Revised Statutes of Ontario. Chap. 213. An Act to encourage the Planting and Growing of Trees. 1914 https://archive.org/details/v2revisedstatute1914ontauoft/page/2842/mode/2up https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924016981304&view=2up&seq=1008&size=125

[12] Revised Statutes of Ontario. An Act to encourage the Planting and Growing of Trees. 1927 https://archive.org/details/v3revisedstat1927ontauoft/page/3284/mode/2up

Maple Leaves Forever is proud to present this series of posts detailing the history of roadside tree planting in Ontario, researched and written by Terry Schwan, R.P.F. The full essay will be released in its entirety in Fall 2021.

Terry Schwan is a semi-retired forest consultant. Born in Hanover, he served as District Forester in Guelph for the Ministry of Natural Resources for 17 years. One of his current projects involves researching and delivering forest history tours. He was winner of the Maple Leaves Forever / Ontario Envirothon Leadership Award in 2020.

Maple Leaves Forever thanks Terry warmly for this detailed and informative essay.

Part 1: The need to beautify Old Ontario with roadside tree-planting

In journeying lately through many of the northern and southern States … no contrast was more striking, none more pregnant with reflection than the difference between the deforested and the partially wooded farms on the route. Numbers of the former, numbers of the latter, were passed.

…, the roadside fence, the long side fences as well, east, west, and south faces, would have their row of closely growing trees a dense extended wall of fragrant cedar, or lightsome larch, or, it may be, a continuous line of clustering maple branch and stem, their multitudinous leaflets bright in the sun of early June.

Screened from the wind in some quiet corner, the branches of the orchard rose. However poor the mansion, backed by such surroundings, it looked respectable, the fields rich, the farmer opulent. The comments of the travelling passengers invariably took this direction. “How much better a farm looks for the trees!”…. I’d give two thousand dollars more for this than one of those others, anyway. The man who owns a place like this is somebody. This is a residence, sir. [1]

Driving through rural Ontario we often see rows of trees, mostly sugar maple, along roadsides. They are here and there and when you see a particularly spectacular one you are enthralled. That is what William Phipps described above, as he travelled through Ontario and North America.

The legislative history of roadside tree planting in Ontario goes back 150 years with the first Act passed in 1871. For some decades before, the clearing of the forest by the settlers was causing some concern in Old Ontario among progressive farmers and conservation minded men. These men worried about the loss of forests, of water in the soil, with the resultant drying of springs, soil erosion from the spring melt and from unobstructed winds, as well as the clearing of soils unsuitable for agriculture. Demands were made by a few lonely voices about the need to reforest and protect farm woodlots and to stop clearing of more forests, especially on the headlands and higher slopes. And in fact, many of these forward-thinking farmers had done this and then later had seen the error of their ways. Probably the first group to sound the need for trees for protection and aesthetics was the Ontario Fruit Growers Association. [2]

Members of the Association recognized that tree replacement along roadsides was one of the solutions. Four years after Confederation, Ontario passed its first law to encourage roadside tree-planting: ‘An Act to encourage the planting of trees upon the highways in this Province, and to give a right of property in such trees to the owners of the soil adjacent to such highways.’ [3]

 In the preamble to the Act, the Province recognized it was expedient to encourage the planting of trees, shrubs and saplings upon highways, as well as provide protection, from injury and damage to those already growing there. The Act allowed trees, shrubs and saplings presently growing along the highway to be the property of the owner of the land adjacent to the highway. Landowners could plant trees bordering the highway as long as they were not a nuisance and every tree was deemed property of the owner. Municipalities could remove trees for highway improvements, and reimburse the owner. Any tree cut or injured had to be approved by municipal council. There was a fine not exceeding $25.00 plus costs upon conviction for removing or injury to a tree or tying an animal to a tree that caused injury to the tree. Half the fine went to the person laying the information and half to the municipality. The municipality could spend money to plant and preserve trees along a highway or grant money to persons or associations to do the same. A highway was defined as almost any public road, place or square.

Did the act succeed in its goal of having more trees planted? It is not clear if there was any promotional program similar to what will be described below. There is no record to any great degree the number of trees planted. Certainly, some progressive farmers understood the ecological and aesthetic advantage of having trees planted along the highway, around their homestead and farm lane. Figure 1 illustrates an example of this from 1878. The Beldon Illustrated Atlas’s for Ontario counties have many such illustrations. [4]

Citations:

[1] Ontario. Forestry Report 1884. R. W. Phipps. Sessional Paper #4 of the Ontario Legislature. 1885. p.5 https://archive.org/details/n01ontariosession17ontauoft/page/n555/mode/2up

[2] Coons, C. F. Reforestation of private lands in Ontario. Forestry Research Group, Armson Private Land Forestry Review. 1981. p.5

[3] Statutes of Ontario. VIC 34.  CAP 31 An Act to encourage the planting of trees… adjacent to such highways.1871.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112204260568&view=2up&seq=94&q1=trees

[4] H. Beldon & Co. 2001 Edition of Illustrated Historic Atlas of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham Ont. Toronto 1878.