Maple Leaves Forever is proud to present the third in a series of posts detailing the history of roadside tree planting in Ontario, researched and written by Terry Schwan, R.P.F. The full essay is now available for download in PDF : DOWNLOAD NOW
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 Eleven had repealed their by-law.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, $5,482.22 was reimbursed to the municipalities for one half of the value of trees planted [4].
Pilkington Township in Wellington County (now one half of Centre Wellington) was the single largest municipal subscriber with 3,620 trees reimbursed. Pilkington passed a by-law in December 1884 and appointed the township clerk, Robert Cromar, as “inspector of tree planting” at the rate of two dollars per day while employed.[5] The most subscribers by county were in Lincoln County (see note in Table 1) with 6,653 trees followed by Oxford, Ontario (now Durham Region) and Brant. Every county in southwestern and central Ontario had at least one municipality involved in the program. In eastern Ontario, only Oxford Township in Grenville and Kingston participated, and only to a small degree.
| Municipality | County | Payment by province ($) | # of trees |
| Pilkington | Wellington | 452.48 | 3620 |
| Pickering | *Ontario | 444.73 | 3558 |
| Chinguacousy | Peel | 379.90 | 3039 |
| Thorold, Town | *Welland | 332.87 | 2663 |
| Zorra, East | Oxford | 243.60 | 1949 |
| Niagara | Lincoln | 223.62 | 1789 |
| Hope | Northumberland | 210.75 | 1686 |
| Dereham | Oxford | 196.11 | 1569 |
| Gainsboro | Lincoln | 174.49 | 1396 |
| Brantford | Brant | 173.59 | 1389 |
| Burford | Brant | 169.61 | 1357 |
| Louth | *Lincoln | 162.24 | 1298 |
| Oakland | Brant | 146.00 | 1168 |
| Grantham | Lincoln | 144.73 | 1158 |
| King | York | 140.37 | 1123 |
| Warwick | Lambton | 133.98 | 1072 |
| Whitby | Ontario | 128.99 | 1032 |
| 34 others | 13 others | 1624.00 | 12994 |
| Total | $ 5482.00 | 43858 |
Number of trees is calculated based on Payment by Province divided by 12.5 cents
*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.
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.
The full essay is now available for download in PDF : DOWNLOAD NOW
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
