Fur hunting is a topic that is sensitive to many with regards to the environment and ethics. As a result of where I grew up, I’ve never gone hunting or trapping, and I’m surrounded by people who are mostly against it. As a result, I have a biased approach to this topic; hunting is unethical and unnecessary given our current impacts on the environment and technologies that allow us to make synthetic alternatives. During this past week, however, after reading varying perspectives from the Adirondacks, I’ve found that the debate over hunting and trapping is remarkably complex, which has led me to critique my bias.

Before diving into the current issue of fur hunting in the Adirondacks, it is important to understand its history. According to The Adirondack Atlas, written by Jerry Jenkins and Andy Keal in 2004, fur trading in New York territory was a notable way in which Europeans fostered a connection with the Iroquois, trading fur and military protection for goods such as corn and tobacco (Jenkins). Down the road, however, the trade became tense, leading to “a hundred and fifty years of war,” also known as “The Beaver Wars” (Jenkins). As a result of this conflict, not only did the Iroquois lose power over the region but the exploitation of beaver pelts took a significant toll on its population. Beaver numbers have been slowly recovering since the early 1900s when they were reintroduced to the Adirondack Park and kept under protection (see Figure 1 below).

Since then, the harvest of beaver pelts continues under state regulation; however, due to a decrease in demand of beaver fur and animal pelts in general, full-time trappers are facing hardships in their craft and more are leaving the industry. Figure 2 below demonstrates the plummeting of the relative purchasing power of beaver pelts since the early 20th century (Jenkins). Evolutions in synthetic fabric technology and growing distaste towards hunting are among some of the factors that are pushing the hunting industry to the ground.

To some, fur hunting is seen as unsustainable and unethical; however, when comparing it to the impacts of agriculture and synthetic fabrics industries, environmental and ethical implications fall short. According to Paul Schneider, the author of The Adirondacks: A History of America’s First Wilderness published in 1997, “the threat to terrestrial species … comes more often from loss of habitat rather from hunting or trapping … [s]econd homes, agriculture, acid rain, clear-cutting, erosion; these … are forces to fear” (Schneider). After reading this passage, I realized how I’d been failing to consider other human practices that have a significantly larger impact on ecosystems than hunting. In a class discussion the next day, my classmate Ben brought up a critical point that we source our synthetic alternatives from petroleum, which harms the environment through drilling, manufacturing, and transporting the oil. Moreover, these practices and their consequences cause ethical and humanitarian issues.

As a result of class discussions and readings, I’ve begun to question my bias on hunting and trapping. Although I wouldn’t go as far to say I would hunt, I don’t think the industry should disappear for good, nor do I wish it for the sake of those who have been hunting for generations and whose livelihoods depend on this practice. So long as hunting and trapping is done legally and protections remain within sustainable means for ecosystems, hunting should continue as recreational and economic activity. 

Works Cited

Jenkins, Jerry, and Andy Keal. The Adirondack Atlas: A Geographic Portrait of the Adirondack Park. Syracuse University Press, 2004.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “Trapping Regulations.” Trapping Regulations – NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 2021, www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9209.html.

Schneider, Paul. The Adirondacks: A History of America’s First Wilderness. Henry Holt, 1997.