I hope that it's clear that I perceive (and encourage others to the same perception) that there are many fauna with very high monetary potential and that in order to exploit that potential, not only fur but faunal-related activities are required. I've listed them in my Rural System book.The fur-related resource system, for example, is a monetary system, with high return potentials. It should not be a backwoods anachronism, a pioneer days hold-over, but a modern profit-centered production system. To do so, to be such a system, does not preclude certain benefits claimed for the current disjunct activities such as recreation and historic and cultural values but in this system such activities are irrelevant, inefficient, and certainly insufficient to stabilize full-scale, efficient resource use.
A trapper enjoys his or her work - the pleasure of being outdoors, the beauties of nature, healthful exercise and more. Is this "recreation" or is it a corollary of "desirable employment," something few people now seem to experience in their work days? I do not think trapping "for recreation" should be promoted, encouraged, or even mentioned. It is irrelevant and a topic producing great anxiety and stress among many citizens. Trapping is for money. The fact that other pleasurable benefits are gained by some trappers is irrelevant. The fact that not much money is made is also irrelevant. There are thousands of irrational and unskilled people who unsuccessfully pursue riches in all walks of life. The saddest example are the urban youths who persist in basketball practice in order to play professional ball. The odds of success are so low as to make the activity, with only little "fun" in the pursuit, irrational.
There are people who make their livelihood from trapping, but they are few; others stabilize cash flow by this seasonal work. Only about 0.7% of the U.S. people trap. They sell an average of about $600 a year! Averages are misleading because many who attempt to trap make no sales; few make large net gains. The emphasis: it is likely that no state agency collects enough license fees from trappers to support the activities of administration, law enforcement, or management (when it exists) of a fur-related system. There are very few (and declining) numbers of trappers (though this number fluctuates greatly with style, fur prices, the future market, and the potentials achieved by a fur system).
I do not like to dig weeds from the yard. At least many people will agree with me on that! you may say. Perhaps we have different reasons. I see an intricate system in every plant, a profound solar collector that challenges the best scientific minds, a mathematically splendid configuration that aligns leaves to collect the most sun during the day, a biochemical factory of wondrous loops and processes and thresholds and adjustments to accommodate freezing, grazing, and the pitiful efforts of some yard tender. I think about these things; I hate to dig weeds. Then I dig, because my love of a clear lawn is greater than my hate.
I hate to kill animals, even spiders in the living room, but I do. They are micro-lions, predaceous on insects and other creepy things. They are ugly (to me), but then I have seen people married to ugly spouses. Everything is relative. They are probably beautiful to another spider - maybe even to the other person's spouse. I hate to kill spiders, but I do. I had a fascinating colony of ants in a log, but then they attacked my porch. I hated to kill them too, but I did. I hate to see pigs butchered. But I have and I still enjoy pork. I have seen beef slaughter houses and I did not like them, but I continue to eat beef and wear leather shoes, and benefit from the products and taxes of the entire beef industry.
The problem grows more complex the more the lines are blurred between what is life and how we relate to it. There are blurred differences between plants and animals; viruses have done this for us. Brown marine algae has motile sperm. It seems okay to kill disease-producing creatures, poisonous snakes, and mosquitoes. I kill in my home and yard, but I hate it. I kill creatures even when I walk...but I hate it. I pay someone to collect eggs, kill for me lobsters, crabs, fish, chickens, pigs, and cattle ... but I hate it. I avoid living in a tub of tears or in huddled despondency by accepting the trade-offs I must make. For me to live requires that I destroy life - germs, parasites, garden pests, giant trees - at least occasionally in order to get energy and certain amino acids.
It seems to me that thoughtful people need to reconcile these difficult problems of love of self and self-support requirements, and the trade-offs that need to be made to live a life that "fits," that matches up, and that has actions consistent with what is believed and stated.
Except for pathologic cases of which I have heard, I know of no one who likes to kill animals. I have known slaughter house workers, poultry farmers, pest control experts, trappers, and hunters and not one truly likes the instant of the kill. To suggest all hunters or trappers and others do so seems an erroneous observation. The instant of kill seems a necessity if people are to eat meat, to protect themselves and their foods or livelihood from rats. They must protect themselves from bird or mammalian pests or disease vectors, decide to use use any animal oils or experience any of the benefits of animal-based medical and pharmaceutical research and development.
There is hardly a need to attempt to develop a rational argument for not killing animals. There are some who "know what is right" and the basis of that knowledge is metaphysical. Others' knowledge of what is right is grounded in observation and inductive reasoning. Some insist upon consistency, others do not. There appear to be no grounds for discussion and debate over issues of trapping. Strong efforts to ban it have been made (Gentile 1987). The use of the leg-hold or foothold trap has been banned in a few states. I believe that among people willing to discuss their differences and seek compromises and concessions to aggrieved minorities as typical in a democracy, then several premises may be worth study. They seem to be needed in an endeavor reaching for the next century.
My personal feelings are that while killing is a necessary condition of human life, it has some rules or policies that ought to go with it. One such rule-set is that:
- Every death-dealing act should be known and acknowledged by the killers and benefactor of that act. It is at least a respect for the work of the organism, the process, the struggle, the eons of trial, the expression of survival, the wonder of it all. Perhaps religious or spiritual, it need not be framed in these terms. To kill should require, should generate, at least some thought, appreciation, and primitive regret. Other premises may be worth study:
- All species should be protected from extermination by people.
- To receive some human benefits (or avoid costs) from some animals, some must be killed.
- No animal should be killed needlessly (i.e., without a prior perceived use for benefit or cost reduction).
- As few animals should be killed as possible, consistent with objectives (e.g., two heavy animals may yield as much quality meat as four light-weight animals).
- All possible use should be made of any animal killed.
- Killing of any animal should be done:
- as quickly as possible
- as cost effectively as possible
- in the presence or view of as few people as possible and as inconspicuously as possible
- with as little prior warning or "threat" to the animal as possible
- with the least stress or frustration possible to actual or potential observers of the event
- with minimum post mortem discussion of the actual kill
- with as low risk of failure as possible and
- with safety to humans (and other animals).
- There should be minimum risks of secondary effects (such as consuming a poisoned animal).
I have avoided using "humane." Where and when killing of an animal is judged appropriate, then I suggest the above as appropriate criteria for doing so.
Dealing with my thoughts about annual harvest for fur is not easy. First, let me speak briefly of pleasure. I pat my dog's head because it feels good. Similarly, I stroke cats. It feels good, and neither seem to mind my doing so. I eat ice cream partially because it feels good. I eat candy because it tastes good, not because I need it. As I list my sensory activities, I can easily convince myself that I am a hedonist. I do not want to stray far from the topic, but there is potentially a hedonistic element to my wanting fur, either for my family, fellow citizens, or myself. I do, because it feels good. I do not deny it; I cannot consider that "bad" given I now realize the survival value in the many things I do because they "feel good" to my many senses.
There are artificial furs that feel good, but few that feel as good as the real fur. There is diversity in wild fur. Perhaps this is a quibble over the subtle difference between a poor wild fur and a high quality synthetic fur. I do not care to press the point. There is a difference, perhaps known only to people like those who can discriminate a synthetic diamond from the real one.
Knowledge of having the real thing, something genuine, is pleasurable. Advertisers work on this concept suggesting only one brand is right. Plastic furniture looks like wood but it does not feel or sound like wood. At a distance, all is the same. True or not, the wearer or owner knows, and this provides pleasure. Pleasure easily attracts negative connotations. I believe pleasure is part of a high quality life and a condition far removed from a condition of existence, certainly from frustration and stress. Associated with sufficient pleasurable experiences, I group generally-lowered hostility, reduced personal conflicts, improved personal health, and increased longevity.
I think furs are the basis for excellent functional garments. They have proved over the evolutionary long-term to be wonderful insulators with characteristics needed by animals. My former student,
Seth Diamond, found that the energy saved by deer hides as clothing were more important to pre-settlement people than the energy of food. There may be a primitive love of fur. I believe furs should be used. They can save energy - both directly for a person and indirectly by preventing loss of health. Even collars and trim have special functions of warmth, insulation, and reduced conduction of heat from the body. Warm clothes, fur being a part, can reduce heat needed in buildings, heat needed to be consumed in food, and extra heat for outdoors work or play.
I have not done analyses of synthetic furs. but in other products produced from petrochemicals, the energy costs are very great. To suggest that synthetic furs replace natural furs is short on the energy argument in two ways. One is that the synthetic furs rarely have comparable insulation (warmth) properties. The other is that they cost a great deal of fossil energy and rarely last as long as natural fur. The ratio of energy saved per year per unit of energy it cost to produce the fur is not favorable.
I generally favor functional garments and therefore take great pleasure in seeing a warm fur hat and coat on a person in a cold climate. I admit to temporary negative reactions to wild furs worn only once or twice for purposes of show or fashion. These are two subtle distinctions that blur my confidence. One is that I do not mind nearly as much seeing domestic furs used under such conditions. The other is that I often see great joy in the wearer and his or her colleagues, and then I must judge (or not) whether such social joy and personal pleasure is worth the cost. Perhaps it is.
I've tried here to sketch the dimensions of an analysis of the problems that exist among groups of society that have differing views on the importance of fur, the means of securing it, the production system needed for the animals potentially yielding fur, and the associated benefits (or costs) from these same animals. There are other monetary uses of fauna.
That animals have rights was established in 1866 (Gentile 1987). Animal rights activists seem to believe that wild animals have a right to exist as individuals. "Pity for animals is no longer the main issue; legal standing is" (Gentile 1987:502).
I do not know how the legal winds for or against trapping will blow in the near future.
These comments were based on my book, Forest Fauna.