ANTI-TRAPPING ARGUMENTS

An often-repeated anti-trapping argument is that "trapping has little
importance to most people today... few trap full-time, most do it
part-time or as a hobby. The average [British Columbia] trapper makes
$800 a year". [66]

One also hears emotional "sob-stories" about trapping being "essential
for the livelihood of native people". Canada has one of the highest
standards of living in the world. No one is forced by poverty to make
a living by torturing animals. Trappers get a mere pittance for their
furs... " [67]

Claims that trapping is a traditional occupation of the indigenous
population, says one animal-rights pamphlet, are "particularly
disgusting, since it takes advantage not only of animals but also of
our native people." [68]

The native people of Canada don't agree. In response to the growing
anti-trapping threat, Indian people from across Canada met in
Winnipeg, Manitoba in February 1984 for the first Aboriginal Hunters
and Trappers Conference. This conference, which was attended by chiefs
of many bands, by the Native Council of Canada, by the Assembly of
First Nations, by the Inuit Tapirisat and by the Metis National
Council, resolved:

"to combat the anti-trapping movement for the preservation of the Fur
Industry, trapping rights for Aboriginal and Canadian trappers, and
especially to safeguard the Native way of life, culture, heritage, and
traditional values, and Aboriginal rights... [69]

The Mathias Colomb Band, of Missinippi River, Manitoba, declared:

Trapping has always been a way of life for Indian people.... It still
offers us food, because most fur-bearing animals that we trap are a
good source of meat. All beaver and muskrat that are caught are used
as food.... and certainly fried Iynx chops are a delicacy. Today we
sell the fur, and for many of us, trapping is our livelihood, our
mainstay, and we value that traditional lifestyle as part of our
heritage.... We don't squander, we don't pollute, and we certainly
don't needlessly destroy; and if anything should be considered a
national issue, it is these three topics that must be addressed,
rather than the harvest of fur-bearing animals. [70]

About eight thousand Cree people still hunt and trap throughout the
vast James Bay territory of northern Quebec. They, too, are clear in
their opposition to the anti-trapping movement:

"The Crees reject the notion that the leg-hold traps are
inhumane.... The reasons given by those who propose to ban the use of
these traps are based on incomplete understanding of the trapper's way
of life. Trapping is part of the Cree way of life. It is an essential
part of Cree culture. It is a major source of food, and provides one
of the sources of income within an extremely limited economic base....

Furthermore, Cree rights to hunt, fish, and trap are guaranteed by the
James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, by the James Bay and Northern
Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, by the Federal Constitution of
1982, and by several acts of the Quebec National Assembly. The Crees
vigorously defend their rights to hunt, fish and trap, and to apply
the techniques and means which were in use at the time these
agreements were signed.

The Crees find it hypocritical that anyone should tell them about the
humane use of animals. Cree tradition and belief is based upon a
relationship with animals far more intimate and complete than the
rather limited and inconsistent positions taken by people who
represent themselves as supporters of humane killing.... The Cree
relationship with animals is one of respect and conservation. The
Crees depend upon the animals of the region, and their knowledge of
this dependence has led them over several thousand years to respect
the mutual nature of this dependence....

It is particularly important to let our European friends know that the
application of a ban (on the leg-hold trap) will cause serious damage
to native people who depend upon hunting, fishing, and trapping; and
that their efforts, however sincerely they may be based upon
humanitarian motivations, will be one further example of damage caused
by the European invasion of our land, and the application of foreign
ideas not compatible to our way of life... [71]

Alan Herscovici. 1985. "Second Nature: The Animal Rights
Controversy". Stoddart Publishing, Toronto.