Few animal or wildlife issues arouse passions like fur. Opponents of the industry, which relies on farm-raised critters and animals trapped in the wild for its product, maintain that it is a blood-soaked relic of a barbaric past.
For many of the trade’s primary producers, the trappers of wild beasts, it is way of life often passed down through generations with deep roots in history (the fur trade was one of key sectors of the 17th century North American economy). There are an estimated 150,000 trappers in the United States, some who pursue it full-time, many part-time.
Myself and photographer Jessica Rinaldi went out on a recent weekend with trapper Harold Renfro into the east Texas and west Louisiana countryside for a first-hand look for a story about the recession’s impact on the fur industry. You can see our story here.
Trappers like Renfro maintain they use devices and methods designed to inflict as little suffering as possible to the animals. Some kill instantly by breaking the neck; some don’t or don’t always work the way they are intended. Others restrain the animal until the trapper arrives to dispatch them with a shot to the head or, if they are too close to a roadside, a smack over the head (like the way young seals in Canada are killed).
While we accompanied Renfro, he retrieved five beavers and a racoon. One of the beavers was in a live trap and had to be killed; the others were dead, some with broken necks from the powerful jaws of a steel trap. It’s not for the squeamish that’s for sure.
Animal welfare and rights advocates would argue that just restraining an animal in a trap or snare — even if it doesn’t break any bones — is just plain cruel. They also argue that many traps do cause great pain. Trappers counter that they go to great lengths to avoid this though some suffering is inevitable.
The public debate about the industry highlights broader issues about animal welfare and the lines we all draw. Some people have no problem with trapping; others do but will happily wear leather and eat wild-caught fish (which often suffer while being harvested). Some hunters and anglers regard trapping as a cruel activity that even gives them a bad name; some people feel that all kinds of animal exploitation are beyond the pale.
It also highlights other issues as trapping is not done simpy to feed the fur industry. Many trappers are paid to remove or destroy problem animals. As a Canadian I am surprised at the size of the Texas and Louisiana beaver populations, which have swelled for a number of reasons including the clearing of old-growth forests in the region (beavers can get their teeth into second-growth trees a lot more easily). They dam drainage ditches and flood parking lots or destroy crops like corn, using the stalks to build their dams.
The nutria, an aquatic rodent introduced from South America for its fur, has been blamed for eroding the New Orleans levee system, making it vulnerable when Hurricane Katrina struck. Animal welfare groups pointedly say that the fur industry created that problem; trappers say regardless, they have to contend with it.
This list could be endless; racoons versus suburban garden owners, coyotes versus livestock farmers, man-eating crocodiles versus African peasants. There is an endless cycle of human/animal conflict for which there are no easy solutions. (Some would advocate more humane methods than trapping to deal with such issues, but others would counter that is impractical).
What do you think? Is trapping beyond the pale, a necessary evil for dealing with animal/human conflict, or a legitimate activity if practiced in a sustainable manner?
