A central question to all my interviewees was, “How have you seen sheep impact the land?”. When I began this project, I was surprised to discover the extent of environmental degradation that took place in the 19th century and by the supposed role sheep played in it. It seemed strange to me that Merinos were villainized when they were domesticated and imported by humans. As I reflect on relationships between humans, sheep, and trees that lived two centuries ago, I’m left pondering the power of the stories we tell. We can point fingers at sheep who overgrazed land that was not accustomed to their presence, but that absolves humans of the primary role we played in altering the landscape with sheep as our tools.
Everyone I interviewed who raises sheep is adamant that when grazed responsibly, sheep enrich the soil, aid in carbon sequestration, and contribute to an overall healthier farm ecosystem. More than cattle, sheep are uniquely suited to Vermont’s landscape due to their light step and their dispersed manure. They also produce a variety of products that can be used in clothing, housing, and feeding Vermonters, decreasing dependence on out of state economies.
Beyond nourishing the land, sheep root us to place, time, and natural systems. I enjoyed hearing how my participants’ relationships to the land have been impacted through raising sheep as well as the potential sheep have for building climate awareness. Below you can read about the complicated history regarding Merinos and the Vermont forest, and in this section, you can explore contemporary perspectives on these topics.
During the Merino Mania, Vermont became influenced by factors beyond its borders and began to reflect national trends of industrialization. In order to accommodate the quick expansion of Merino flocks, Vermont farmers cleared vast areas of forest to create pastures. Much forested land had already been cleared for farmland by this time, and farmers continued to remove trees through chopping, burning, and girdling1. Sheep are known as a useful “frontier crop,” and they aided in deforestation by preparing large areas of land for tillage with their hoofs and dung2. Additionally, sheep fed on all foliage, including young tree saplings which made it difficult to reforest land. While the introduction of Merino provided a reason to clear more land for agriculture, Vermont forests were also cleared for lumber, fuelwood, and potash3. In 1794, Vermont exported their first wood, a boat of oak trees sent to Quebec, and lumber rafts were floated north until 1823, when the Champlain Canal expanded the markets that could be accessed by ship4. By 1840, marketable trees had been virtually eliminated from the Champlain Valley5. Additionally, Vermont had a thriving potash industry, which was made from burning hardwoods to create an ashy deposit and used in the manufacturing of soap and glass and for processing fiber6. Furthermore, fuelwood was in high demand by both Vermont settlers and the growing railroad industry. In 1850, Vermont railroads were burning sixty-three cords of wood per year, a number so great that it led to wood shortages7.
In the 1800s nature became something that needed to be dominated in service of agriculture, industry, and wealth. It is estimated that over ninety-five percent of Vermont was covered with forest when Europeans arrived, but this percentage dropped to eighty-two by 1790, to fifty-eight by 1820, to forty-seven by 1850, and finally thirty-seven in 18808. By the mid-century, the removal of the forest was primarily driven by the market needs of the growing national economy and not the needs of subsistence farmers. Unlike subsistence farmers, commercial farmers made their decisions based on market forces beyond their farm and the state, instead of the needs of their land9. The success of the Vermont Merino industry was tied into the exploitation of the land, and the land eventually gave out10. Monocropping and excessive grazing led to soil erosion and exhaustion, and when this occurred, farmers abandoned their plots to move to freshly cleared land11. The removal of forests changed the microclimates and led to hotter summer, colder winters, as well as more flooding12. Wild animal populations drastically decreased due to habitat loss at the same time as wolves were aggressively hunted to protect the grazing sheep. The severe ecological and economic changes brought on by the Merino Mania altered both how farmers practiced agriculture as well as community structures and dynamics.
While the deforestation of Vermont is often associated with the presence of Merinos, the clearing of the forests continued past the end of the sheep craze13. In the 1860s, Burlington was the fourth largest lumber port in the US and Vermont’s lumber industry didn’t reach its peak until 188914. Deforestation was at its highest in 1870, when it is believed that 68% of the land was “improved”15. The extent of this is hard to imagine, as in the 21stcentury we see the inverse, with around 30% of the state cleared and 70% forested. However, towards the end of the 19thcentury, much of the land that had been cleared by settlers started gradually returning to forest16. Many abandoned farms reverted to woodlands and forests gradually returned, though with altered species compositions. While the hills of Vermont are not covered in sheep today, the land still tells a clear story of what occurred in the 19th century.
Sources:
- Sanford, Gregory. “The Bleat of the Sheep, The Bark of the Tree: Vermonters and Their Landscape, a View from the Archives.” Vermont History, vol. 70, 2002, pp. 2.
- Woods, Rebecca J. H. “Green Mountain Merinos: From New England to New South Wales in the Nineteenth Century.” Vermont History, vol. 85, no. 1, 2017, pp. 6-7.
- Kylza, Christopher McGrory, and Stephen C. Trombulak. The Story of Vermont- A Natural and Cultural History. Second Edition., University Press of New England, 2015, pp. 63.
- Albers, Jan. Hands on the Land, A History of the Vermont Landscape. The MIT Press, 2000, pp. 146.
- Ibid.
- Klyza & Trombulak, pp. 66
- Ibid.
- Ibid, pp. 67
- Ibid, pp. 70
- Albers, pp. 171
- Klyza & Trombulak, pp. 50
- Ibid, pp. 49
- Albers, pp. 202
- Ibid, pp. 224
- Ibid, pp. 202-203
- Klyza & Trombulak, pp. 103