The death of trapping
Yukon News, February 15, 2008
The public consultations on the Wildlife Act proposed revisions sure have taken an interesting turn. Public debate over the proposal to allow hunters to shoot more wolves (the rationale for which remains elusive) has morphed into a heated discussion about trapping. I am wading into this valuable discussion, while hoping that the original issue won't be lost in the public eye.
As someone who has openly expressed my own opinions on the well-being of wild animals, I was relieved to see Frank Johnstone's letter on Friday, February 8 explaining that his wolf skull "gift" to animal rights activist Mike Grieco was meant to be educational and not threatening. It is a shame that Mr. Johnstone's verbal message did not arrive with the skull as intended, for there is no miscommunication like non-communication. These past several weeks must have been difficult for Mr. Johnstone as he contemplated how to undo the damage done by this failed message.
Mr. Johnstone explained in his letter that he selected a specific wolf's skull for this educational gift. He pointed out the animal's worn and missing teeth as evidence for how the act of trapping the animal had served as a form of euthanasia. But there is a fundamental flaw in this lesson. Even if we came to agree that he was acting nobly by taking the life of an animal who was doomed to die anyway (aren't we all?), we must also agree that trapping is non-selective. Though Mr. Johnstone carefully selected this particular skull from his collection, there is no way that he could have selectively trapped this wolf, or any other. Had he been able to make that choice, I seriously question why he would choose to trap an animal that was nearing the end of his or her natural life, given the probable poor quality of the under-nourished animal's pelt.
An additional problem with the euthanasia argument is that many trapped animals suffer unreasonable pain and fear before their lives are ended. Traps and snares are not perfect, cruelty-free tools for gently snuffing an animal's life. If one wished to end the suffering of an animal who is in poor health, a trap would not be a compassionate choice of tool for the job.
Mr. Johnstone's letter also described the role trappers play in monitoring wildlife. While I do not doubt his assertion that he provides useful information about the animals he traps to regional biologists and wildlife agencies, it is nonetheless clear that his primary goal as a trapper is not to monitor the well-being of furbearing animals. If we as a society are serious about this monitoring work, we'd have wildlife biologists doing it, and their methods would be non-intrusive. Rather, the motivation behind trapping is to provide monetary gain for the trapper and furs for the fashion industry. Of course everyone needs to make a living. But the fashion industry does not need furs, as there are countless other suitable and attractive fabrics available. Furs are much more appealing when worn by the animals they belong to, and the animals can wear their own furs guilt-free.
I feel sympathy for Mr. Johnstone when I state my position on trapping, as I question the necessity of the trapping livelihood, which he considers a key part of his identity. Yet even Mr. Johnstone alluded to the occupation's potential demise in his letter, saying it is something he is working hard to try and prevent. If trapping is indeed in its sunset years, this is very good news for the animals. As for the trappers, I feel confident that they have other lucrative talents to be proud of.
Rachel Westfall
Whitehorse