Trappers struggle with "humane" traps

Page 13

Trapping has never been an easy life. But for an estimated 80,000 Canadians, half of them Native, trapping wild animals for fur is still a major source of income. That way of life is about to get a lot harder as the federal government forces trappers to switch to quick-kill traps to satisfy European animal-rights activists.

Canadian trade officials agreed to ban leghold traps as a compromise to stave off a complete ban on Canada's fur imports as threatened by European parliamentarians. But the the Canadian government acknowledges it didn't do any formal consultation with First Nations before it agreed to the trap ban.

"We didn't have time to do that," said Smokey Bruyere, an Indian Affairs official.

That's left First Nations organizations up in arms. They are dumbfounded that Canada never bothered to ask trappers if they'd agree to change their traps.

"Harvesting and trapping are guaranteed in the treaties," said Alexandra McGregor, secretary to the Assembly of First Nations fur-harvesters' committee. "They cannot interfere with the way you hunt and trap."

McGregor said Ottawa is violating Aboriginal rights. She said the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled in the Sioui case that the government "can't negotiate on our behalf."

Bob Stevenson, publisher of a newsletter on trapping and a member of the fur-harvesters' committees of both the Assembly of First Nations and the Metis National Council put his feelings in plain terms.

"Indian Affairs is a regime that is totally out to screw Indian people."

Like most observers, Stevenson believes Native lobbying was one of the main reasons Europe backed down from a complete ban on Canadian fur imports. Yet Native people got nothing in return from Canada except a slap in the head, no guarantees the Native way of life won't be hurt, no help with trap replacement or trapper education.

Meanwhile, far away from the fur wars in Europe, many trappers in the bush are filled with uncertainty. The average full-time trapper with as many as 50 to 100 traps might be stuck with a bill in the thousands of dollars to replace them. (Leghold traps cost about $9 each.)

Trappers also say the quick-kill traps have numerous drawbacks - so many that they say the new traps might have a big impact on the Native traditional way of life.

The quick-kill traps deliver a crushing blow to the animal, designed to kill within seconds and prevent prolonged suffering. But many trappers say the blow is too strong, so crushing it damages the meat. They also say the stronger mechanism makes it dangerous and hard to open, especially for Elders, women and children.

One Cree trapper in northern Quebec, who requested anonymity, said the new traps are for "profit-hunters."

"The quick-kill means you sledge-hammer the meat. I kill beaver to eat. The skin is secondary," said the trapper, who is also a fur officer for the Cree Trappers' Association.

He said the Conibear, the most common make of quick-kill traps, was "designed for the fur industry. They haven't thought of the meat. Would they use a Conibear to kill a cow? It would break the back. The beef industry would never go for it.

"With the leghold trap, you can set it with one hand. It's very simple. Even a 10-year-old can go trapping," he said.

Alison Beal is one of the people who are educating Canada's trappers about the changes. Beal is executive director of the Fur Institute of Canada, which is getting several million dollars in federal funds (she wouldn't say exactly how much) to fulfil a mandate to educate trappers and develop new "humane" traps.

Beal isn't too worried about the ban on leghold traps.

"It's not much of a hardship for us."

But many trappers don't seem to agree. Another trappers association officer said almost everyone in his community is still using leghold traps, including him.

"I guess I'm used to using them."

He said the stronger traps are dangerous and heavy. Another problem is that they have to be set in a different way for each anial.

"If you set it for an otter, what if a small weasel goes in there? You'll break it in half."

He said trappers need better information about the changes. "I don't know much about it. We're in the dark, as usual."

Another complaint is that the quick-kill trap leaves the animal dead until the trapper returns to check on it. By that time, the animal could be eaten by birds or other animals, a tremendous waste in the eyes of most trappers. With leghold traps, the animal can defend itself until the trapper arrives.

Others blame the fur institute for a communications breakdown on the issue.

"The problem is they (the fur institute) have an old government voice," said Eric Loring, environmental co-ordinator at the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, which has a seat on the fur institute's Aboriginal Communications Committee.

"The people running it now come from government agencies that worked in the North. They don't really have an idea what Aboriginal organizations are trying to do."

Loring said most of Canada's 1,200 Inuit trappers still use the leghold trap.

One Cree trapper said animal-rights activists won't be satisfied with just banning leghold traps. They'll be happy only when Natives are eating potatoes and carrots.

"Us Natives are the only people who have respect for wildlife," he said. "If you take us out of the bush, you're giving the world to the plunderers."

Trappers will have eight years to switch over to quick-kill traps once Canada ratifies the 1997 Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, probably sometime this summer. Leghold traps will be banned for most small game, and the penalty for using them will be decided in each province and territory.

Restraining traps will still be allowed for some game: wolves, coyotes, bobcat, lynx and fox. But all traps will have to "pass through a process to minimize injury," according to Beal.

Bear isn't affected by the agreement. Snares, dead-falls and any traditional or home-made devices will still be allowed.