The trapper's point of view

Before this week's reading in Sneider’s book, I had always just assumed that trapping animals in the wild was a bad thing; I believe in the rights of animals and I would never wear a real fur coat. But as Hallie mentioned in her blog post, Sneider appears to be taking the side of the trappers in his book, a side which I have never heard before and which I found very thought provoking. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the biggest threats to animals in the wild are not hunters or trappers but the loss of their homes due to factors such as acid rain, erosion, etc (73).  Instead of having a negative impact on the surrounding environment, trappers actually help it and keep it in balance by controlling animal populations. Having too many beavers in the Adirondaks is just as bad if not worse than having no beavers at all.

After reading about the trapper’s view point, I do feel a bit bad for trappers since they have to combat big animal rights groups and regular people who feel they have an 'anti-fur moral superiority'. Although trappers kill and sell animals for a living, they should not face the wrath of angry animal rights activists because they are simply doing their job, (which isn’t always easy or safe, as Sneider explains) and they are just trying to make a living to support themselves and their families. As Sneider mentions on page 99, many farmers in the Adirondaks dabbled in many forest industries including trapping to earn more money and survive.

Instead of animal rights activists directing some of their anger towards trappers I think they should be  instead directing all of their anger to those who wear expensive fur coats as a fashion statement, because they are the ones that are creating a market for fur in the first place. Trappers should not be harassed because most of them are licensed and smart people who follow strict guidelines and support conservation.