River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1885-09-10

of all our live stock. and nearly a,
much as the entire capital of the State
invested in manufactures.
We have no means of verifying the
statistics here presented, but it is fail
to presume that they are measurably
correct. The immense saving to agri-
culture that would follow the remova
of fences, as suggested in the foregoing
remarks, is surely matter worthy o.
considerations. A work of this kind
has been going on for some years in
small towns and villages where front
yard fences have been discarded. and
often the rear and side fences as well
In most states the law in regard to cat
/ tie and other animals found at large il
enforced, are sufficient to protect unen
| closed grounds from depredations from
| this source. If it came TO be the general
/ practice to trust to these laws entirely
and promptly punish violations of them
| it would soon be quite unnecessary to
| 90 to the expense of building fences
around lawns and gardens. The ex-
pense of keeping cattle in bounds, OF
compelling them to be kept there, would
be insignificant in comparison with the
amount spent in building fences mainly
/ for the purpose of protection. While ii
seems idle to talk of dispensing with
fences altogether, it appears as though
it would be entirely practicable to do
4 away with them except for the purpose
/ of limiting the range of domestic ami
mails. If the grazing lands, yards
and pens for cows, sheep. etc, were
securely guarded there would seem no
/ longer any need of division and high
way fences, nor of partition fences in
/ tended merely as such. The farms
in many parts of the country are
divided up to much greater extent than
+ is necessary in any case. In places
where the ground is very stony, about
the only way to dispose of the surplus
/ rocks and cobbles is to build them up
/ in walls, and this may sometimes
afford a sufficient excuse for cutting
up farm into a great number of small
enclosures. But where such reasons
are not to be adduced, it appears like
/ waste of time and labor to divide up
4 a small farm into three and five and
/ ten-acre lots. 1t costs money to obtain
| the material and put up the fences; it
costs to keep them in repair, and last
| but not least it costs time and labor TO
/ let down and put up a pair of bars
every few rods in going from one part
of the farm to another. And then
! there is the waste of land that always
goes with fences. If the farmer who
computed the statistics we have quoted
had added to them the amount, in
acres, of land rendered useless by the
proximity of fences. and thus practically
/ withdrawn from the area of tillable
soil, the results of his computation
would have been still more astonishing
! Especially so would they be in a dis
/ trict where the zigzag rail fences are
still in fashion. But even with the
/ best construction ard the most skill
and care in cultivation, there is always
a wide border of land along every
/ fence that is practically wasted. And
1 to these items are to be added the
/ trouble and annoyance of cultivating
small enclosures, the difficulty of
ploughing them properly, following
all the turns and sharp corners,
and the damage to such crops as corn
and potatoes that is almost unavoidable
where the rows are short and crooked
and the planting done close up to the
I fences. Where horse cultivator is
used in such small fields the growing
crop must always suffer more or less
damage by trampling. Other reasons
than these might be given why fences
are often positive loss to the farmer
and great hinderance to the success
full cultivation OF his land. Without
going so far as to say, with the Maine
farmer, that fences should be discarded
altogether, it certainly seems as though
it would be a measure of wisdom and
economy to have as few of them as
possible and restrict their use mainly
to enclosures for stock and grazing
purposes.