WPC  
       2       B       G   W            Pica  #| x   x x x <      ,Yx |    @   Alps ALQ200/300/P2400C               ALPSALQ2.PRS x 
   @           +
 #| x    2       .   V   3   W     N   O   Pica s U x x x <      ,Yx |    @   Alps ALQ200/300/P2400C               ALPSALQ2.PRS x 
   @           +
 2                                           

  Social Studies: New France

 ' Part 1

  Question #5: Defend or refute the statement:

  "Trapping should be illegalthen and now"

 " By: Josh Lambertă


 
  Trapping is a very important issue, which is connected to many
other larger issues. For instance, trapping lies at the heart of
the First Nation's distinct society issue. Before I talk about the
present, however, I would like to discuss whether trapping should
have been illegal when Canada was first being settled in the 17th
and 18th centuries.
 
  When the first explorers came to the new world, it was
regarded as a huge slab of worthless rock standing between Europe
and the riches of the Orient. The only reason these explorers even
explored this continent was the hope of finding the NorthWest
passage, a route to the Orient. Fortunately, while searching for
this NorthWest passage, some of these explorers stumbled onto a
virtual magnet for settlement: The Fur Trade. When people heard how
pelts of all kinds could be obtained so easily and sold for so
much, the idea of not settling in the new world was ridiculous.
Suddenly settlers came to this "slab of worthless rock" and tried
to set up permanent living there. Even after a few failed attempts
the draw of the fur trade was responsible for the settlement we
call New France.
 
  After the first steps toward a permanent colony in the new
world were made, the next steps came in leaps and bounds. The
French government was sending everyone they could to settle in New
France. Courieurs de Bois, began coming to the colony to trap furs
and sell them back in France. France granted land to poor people
that were willing to risk the great voyage. The colony flourished,
and grew. 
 
  It was the fur trade that was mostly responsible for this
colony. However, some think that by this point the colony was large
enough to illegalize fur trapping and still remain a profitable
colony for France. However, there is one major reason that fur
trading should have been allowed: Relations with the Indians. 
 
  Relations with the Indians were shaky, at best. Some Indians
befriended the French, and some befriended the English. Some just
gave their furs to the highest bidder. The relationship with the
Indians was more than just a trade agreement. The wars of the
Indians were the wars of the French. Now, imagine what would happen
if one day, an Indian came to a Frenchman and offered him a pelt.
The Frenchman tells the Indian that not only will he not buy it,
but no Frenchman in New France will. Not only that, trapping furs
in the forests belonging to the French was not allowed. The
relationships with the Indians which had taken so long to establish
would be shattered in days. The Indians would probably recognize
the French as their enemies. Now not only the enemies of the Indian
"friends" of the French would attack them, but also their
"friends". Settlers would again become afraid to come to New France
because of the fierce Indian attacks. The French colony in New   h)         France would cease to exist. Therefore, I think trapping should
have been legal then.
 
  Now that I have talked about fur trapping then, I'll talk
about it now. Unfortunately, it is much more complicated now.
Animal rights activists have told us that it is wrong to kill an
animal for its fur. I strongly agree with this opinion, especially
since manmade fur is so accessible. Unfortunately, there are
people who feel they deserve real fur if they can pay for it.
Although I disagree with them, you cannot just deny them the fur,
because one way or another they will arrange to get it. Even so,
trapping (for fur) should be illegal. If you want real fur, you
should not kill wild animals. You should go to a farm where animals
are raised for their fur. 
 
  The problem of people wanting real fur is small compared to
other problems for and against the fur trade. For instance, if we
illegalize trapping, the First Nation's way of life would be
totally disrupted. Not letting the First Nation trap is like taking
away a large profession from us, for instance law. What would all
the lawyers do if suddenly practising law was illegal? The First
Nations, I believe, should be allowed to continue trapping as long
as it is under limits. However, I believe that, after all, their
ancestors had such a successful relationship with the land that
trapping within limits should not be a problem.
 
  Another problem that would arise if trapping is illegalized
is that it is said that too many predators (wolves, etc.) would
roam the forests and be dangerous to farms with livestock on them.
It is said that trapping keeps the populations of these predators
low, so they will not pose as much of a threat to farms.
 
  In conclusion, I feel that trapping today should be legal
within strict limits that allow for the way of life of the native
peoples and for the balance of nature, but do not permit gratuitous
killing of animals.