This thesis examines whether leg-hold trapping can continue in the 21st century. It begins with an introduction that provides historical context on the fur trade industry in North America from the 16th to 19th centuries. It then discusses the methodology that will be used, which involves analyzing recent trapping data on species harvest and pelt prices to evaluate the economic impacts of trapping. The thesis aims to determine if trapping continues to improve the US trade imbalance and supports sustainable wildlife management through license fees.

1. 1
LEG – HOLD TRAPPING – CAN IT CONTINUE IN THE 21ST
CENTURY?
A Master Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
American Public University
by
Ray Alan Hendrickson
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
of
Master of Science
May 2014
American Public University
Charles Town, West Virginia

2. 2
The author hereby grants the American Public University System the right to display these
contents for educational purposes.
The author assumes total responsibility for meeting the requirements set by United States
copyright law for the inclusion of any materials that are not the author’s creation or in the public
domain.
© Copyright 2014 by Ray Alan Hendrickson
All rights reserved.

3. 3
DEDICATION
I dedicate this paper to my faithful domestic partner, George A. Munch. He has stood with me
for nearly twenty years. I know there have been times; he has put my interests far ahead of his
own personal endeavors. His support of my personal and professional endeavors is only matched
by his love, compassion and the dedication that he has given and shown me over these many
fantastic years together.

4. 4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Elizabeth Crosier. From the beginning, she had
confidence in my abilities to not only complete a degree, but to complete it with excellence. And
I would like to thank a former fellow employee, Kate Cammack, who has critique my academic
papers.
I have found my course work throughout the Environmental Policy & Management to be
stimulating and thoughtful, providing me with the tools with which to explore both past and
present ideas and issues.

5. 5
ABSTRACT OF THESIS
LEG – HOLD TRAPPING – CAN IT CONTINUE IN THE 21ST
CENTURY?
by
Ray Alan Hendrickson
American Public University, May 25, 2014
Charles Town, West Virginia
Professor Elizabeth Crosier, Thesis Professor
Abstract
Trapping has a long cultural, historical, and ecological past. It has provided, and continues
today, a way of life, including basic subsistence needs like food, shelter, clothing, food, healthy
tax bases. Trapping contributes to both the trade imbalance and overall gross national product
(GNP) and for many people in the 21st
century, provides a well-deserved paycheck. Limited
research has been done and limited literature has been written on specific trapping activities, and
more concerning the ethical and moral issues surrounding trapping.

6. 6
Very little non-ethical literature is written after the 20th
century. Trapping data is collected
by state and wildlife agencies; it is compiled and made available to the public. Trapping fees
have risen just slightly over the years. The 21st
century brings new economic challenges to
demonstrating the benefits of trapping.
In this study, the most current data related to selected species of pelt values, harvest, and
retail value of pelts as a final product was collected. The author wanted to illustrate the validity
of trapping through two objectives:
(1) Are the long term effects of trapping helping to improve the American trade imbalance;
and
(2) Does the trapping industry allow for better management of license fees and sustainable
wildlife resources?

7. 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION……………………….………..…………………………………….11
II. LITERATURE REVIEW..………………………....…………………………………..13
III. METHODOLGY……………………………………………………………………….14
IV. RESULTS……………………….…………………………………..……………….…23
V. DISCUSSION………..……………………………………………..………………….59
LIST OF REFERENCES...……………………………………………………………………..62

8. 8
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. US International Trade Statistics……………………………………..…………………..….. 23
2. Pelt prices…………………………………………………………….…..……………….......25
3. Raw skins manufactured into fur garments………………………….…..……………………26
4. Raw fox and mink pelts……………………………………………….………………………27
5. Green / raw mink fur prices, ending December, 2011………………….……………………..28
6. Various States’ trapping license fees………………..………………….………………..30 – 32
7. North Carolina furbearer harvest (2002 – 2007)………………………………..…………….55
8. Species trapped to aid in the restoration of rare species………………………………………56

9. 9
The North America fur-trading industry existed for almost 200 years, from the mid-
sixteenth to mid-nineteenth century (Net, 2009). During this period, fur trade proved to be a
driving force behind the geographical expansion of the economy extending from the St.
Lawrence Basin to the Pacific Ocean, creating a lasting communications network for the region
(Oglesby, 1967). Before the colonization of America, Russia was the dominate dealer to Western
Europe and throughout many parts of the Asia (Li, LV & Wang, 2008). They hunted in bands of
ten to fifteen men called vatagi (Carlos, 2011). Russia attempts to keep up with Western Europe
trade consumed considerable capital, Russia natural resources did not include gold and silver, but
the country did have raw furs, that have coined as “soft gold” (Li, LV & Wang, 2008 ). This
“soft gold” provided Russia with much needed financial resources (Carlos, 2011). Russian
government levied taxes on the fur trade, the yasak tax on native Russians and a ten percent
“sovereign tithing tax”, which was levy on both the harvest of furs as well as the sale of fur pelts
(Carlos, 2011). The Napoleonic Wars restricted large quantitates of furs exported from Great
Britain to Europe but also transferred those markets to other destinations for which these furs
were predestined (Coclanis, 2011).
With United States’ independence, it started regulating trade with the native tribes
(Carlos, 2011). One of the duties of the nearly created federal agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Bureau was charged with issue licenses to trade in Indian Territory (U.S. Department of
Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2014). Although, this practice has long been discontinue,
individual Federal recognized tribes, have the authority to charge permit fees to trap, or hunt on
reservation, in addition to any other fees that may be required from other state, or federal
agencies (Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2014).

10. 10
Fur-bearing animal populations were almost boundless during the early developmental
years of the United States (Coclanis, 2011). Some scholars have suggested that the early native
Americans may have initially drastically reduce wildlife populations, but wildlife species were
able to rebound by time the Lewis & Clark explorations had commenced (Kay, 1984). Lewis &
Clark noted during their explorations large populations of various species of fur-bearing animals
such as: Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Bobcat (Lynx rufus), American Mink (Neovison
vison) and wolverine (Gulo gulo), European Mink (Mustela lutreola), North American Beaver
(Castor canadensis), North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes),
Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), American Black Bear (Ursus americanus ) and the only
true North American marsupial, Virginia opossum (Didelphia virginiana) (White & Gowans,
1993). Wildlife species that are now only found in limited parts of the country were abundant
throughout North America (Todd, 1981). The early usage of the bow proved a limitation in
keeping wildlife populations at sustaining levels for the advent of fur trapping (McManus, 1972).
Early American trappers worked closely with of the Native Americans, to improve
their sustainable trapping skills (Boddicker, 1981). With every trap selection placement and
utilization of each set or location, trappers were acting as early American wildlife management
managers while providing sustainable benefits (Clayton, 1966). Daniel Boone, Davey Crockett,
and other early American settlers made full usage of the valuable resources (Baker, 1987). Low
populations coupled with a large surplus of various wildlife species, produced the right economic
environment for a new emerging trapping industry (Carlos, 2011).
Colonial settlers had various types of traps available, allowing each trapper a reasonable
expectation of an efficient harvest of targeted animals, and allowing each trapper’s a sufficient
return on their time, and effort in order to support their families (Swagerty, 1990). Trap

11. 11
manufactures have improved springs, and increased holding capable to insure less animals are
lost and resources unharvest (Muth, Zwick, Mather, Organ, Daigle, & Jonker, 2006). Trap
springs were not constricted of the same high strength found in today’s steel traps (Fur Takers of
America - FTA, 2014).
The early trappers’ range was only limited to the mode of travel available to them
(Stabler, Trolley & Howe, 1990). Many colonial trappers saw their trapping territories
overlapping other trappers’ (Hanson, 1987). Today, the trapping territory is only limited by the
distance that a tank full of gas will take a trapper (Dunaway, 1994).
Trapping during the early 20th
century was publicized as a youngster with a few traps
over his shoulder (Schmidt, 1990). Trapping demographics show an older age group with a mean
age of 43 (J. Martin, personal communication, March 6, 2014). In the 21st
century age of
computers, and iPads, young people today have many diversions and distractions, outdoor
environmental opportunities aimed towards young people are heavily promoted (Siemer,
Batcheller, Glass & Brown, 1994). However, outdoor environmental programs such as Take a
Kid Fishing are becoming more difficult to fund and promote in today’s society (Sanford, 2005).
Trappers in the continental United States primarily travel either foot or horseback, and
boat, but many trappers in the northern states also use snowmobiles (Glass, Siemer, Brown,
Batcheller & DiStefano, 1992). Based on trapper surveys, many trappers have indicated they do
continued to trap through less active market periods, due in part for recreational reasons (Siemer,
Batcheller, Glass & Brown, 1994). Although early trappers’ traveled by foot or horseback, most
would only venture a half to full day’s ride or by foot, in order to be with families at night
(Armstrong & Rossi, 2000).

12. 12
Alaskan and Canadian subsistence trappers used a combination of sled dogs and snow-
mobiles, as a mode of transportation (Wolfe, 1991). The automobile is the only real mode of
transportation not used as a primary mode of transportation for trapping (Daigle, 1997).
Wildlife species were not considered property of the individual States until the early 20th
century (Leopold, 1943). It was about this time that trapping license fees were being imposed by
State wildlife agencies (Linhart, 1985). By the turn of the 21st
century, trapping started to be
viewed more in terms of a business, affecting the economy, rather than of a cultural way of life
as it had been in earlier times (Armstrong & Rossi, 2000). Nevertheless, even today, unlike here
in the United States, wildlife species are still considered property of the landowner in European
countries (Bulte & Damania, 2005).
Trapping, through the selling and trading of raw furs, sometimes called green furs,
has provided an excellent economic value benefit, to many people, through creation of new
sustainable jobs, insuring current and future sustainable wildlife populations are continue since
the early colonization of the United States (Batchellar, Hamilton & Organ, 2000). Many people
have used their trapping funds to purchase new vehicles, assist in payment of household bills,
and take vacations that may not be possible through other avenues (Woodward, Hazel &
Gaffney, 1985). Technological better traps, improved trappers through State required trapper
educational courses, and better acceptance of sustainable wildlife management benefits from
wildlife managers and State agencies have proven the wealth of trapping to the overall economy
(Organ, Decker, DiStefano, Elowe, Rego & Mirick, 1996).
Trappers sell their pelts to fur auction houses through fur dealers, this insures quality
pelts receive top market prices, creating an overall profitability economic value of the goods
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies; United States United Census Bureau, 2014). An

13. 13
increase of settler’s prime pelts entering through the economic mainstream increases the overall
perceived value of American fur, which allows price point for imports to fall, thereby decreasing
American trade imbalance (Barrett, Proulx & Jotham, 1988).
Fur trade followed the western expansion of America, slowed until 1803, until the
Louisiana Purchase (Hanson, 1984). The fur trade was dominant from the period 1790 to the
War of 1812; east of the Mississippi River and north of the Ohio River (Wike, 1958). A reversal
occurred in the succeeding 15 years, where the Far West and Russia increased their balances of
trade (Schulzinger, 1986).
The commercial fur trade developed from early contact between Indians and European
fisherman (Kardulias, 1990). American Beaver (Castor canadensis) and wolverine (Gulo gulo)
pelts are the most prized furs from northern States and Canada due to overall quality caused by
the cold environment and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink
(European Mink (Mustela lutreola), and nutria (Myocastor coypus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphia virginiana) are most prized furs from the southern States (Kardulias, 1990). As one
species would fall in economic price and value, another would replace it quickly (Haeger, 1988;
Fichter, 1978). American fur trade increase growth allowed for a greater economic growth and
commerce in other areas (Smith, 1973). Green or raw furs were eventually exported through
Canada, en-route to Russia and China (Wang, 1973).
Wild furs served as a currency delivering people the economic means to provide for their
families while maintaining and increasing sustainable wildlife populations (White, 1988). Early
American trappers bartered their furs in exchange for economic considerations to provide their
families with food staples, household goods, and clothing which fueled a growing economic
growth for a young United States (Witthoft, 1966). While 21st
trappers us their trapping profits to

14. 14
purchase new vehicles, pay household bills, and take a needed vacation which would be
impossible without engaging in trapping activities (Siemer, Batcheller, Glass & Brown, 1994).
This new money being pumped into local economies allowed businesses to grow by lifting hiring
freezes, increasing workers’ wages and new job positions (Yang, Zhang & ZHou, 2011).
Better trap technology has served controlled a potential rapid rise of trap prices over the
last several years (Jones & Rodriguez, 2003). Most trap manufacturers became established
during mid - 1800’s to early 1900’s (Harte, 1991). The growth of new trap companies continued
to fuel economic development in the 20th
century and into the 21st
century (Coclanis, 2011).
Today’s traps are constricted with stronger springs, allowing for less loss of animals (Johnson,
Male, Linhart & Engeman, 1986).
Unlike in today’s marketplace, early pioneer settlers’ served as their own fur brokers
and dealers allowing them to retain more of their economic earnings; but also subjecting furs to
the fluctuation of the American dollar of the 20th
and 21st
century (Thomas & Weber, 1999).
Some historians have suggested during 19th
century, some trappers were also acting in the
capacity of a dealer or broker for other trappers (Tracy, 1979). Today, modern trapping
transactions involved fur broker or fur dealer, serving as middle men, between trappers and fur
auction houses (National American Fur Auction – NAFA, 2014).
Fur houses came into being around the 19th
century (Bateman, 2003). American
capitalism created several houses including the American Fur Company, Hudson Bay Company,
and the Northwest Company (Haeger, 1988). Creation of the American Fur Company in 1808,
by the financer and philanthropist John Jacob Astor, created the positions of fur brokers and
dealers, increasing an economic price level for worldwide furs, causing America to become a
major powerhouse in the fur trade business (Haeger, 1988). The American Fur Company had a

15. 15
monopoly on fur trade by the mid 1800’s, and was one of the largest capitalist enterprises
contributing to America’s economy, gross national product (GNP), and growth (Carlos &
Hoffman, 1986).
The Northwest Company and Hudson Bay Company competed for the same overall
economic dollar (Hudson Bay Company, 2014). The early years of the Hudson's Bay Company
and the Northwest Company duopoly were characterized by passive rather than by predatory
competition (Martin, personal communication, March 6, 2014). Hudson Bay Company initiated
the changes that eventually led to predatory competition (Carlos, 1986).
Fur trade has increased its influence representing a larger portion of the America’s
Gross National Product - GNP (Kolokolnikov, 2013). Prior to the Civil War, pelts were either
manufactured locally, into colonial clothing for daily usage or exported primarily to Great
Britain (Calkins, 2000). After the Civil War, pelts were exported to Canada, and then
exported to China, Russia, and the rest of Asia, for various daily clothing requirements
(Fan, 1973). The increase exports and lower imports improved America’s Gross National
Product - (GNP), and trade imbalance (Carlos & Hoffman, 1986).
Fur coats have come associated with modern upper-class femininity (Pomeranz,
1999). Fur coats representation of a life of luxury has rebounded in the 21st
century (Kiessling,
Balekjian & Oehmichen, 2009). Fur coats are widely associated with technology, such as
traveling in a car, or plane requires warm clothing at times (Skov, 2005). Today’s Asian culture
seems to want to make an impression with a show of luxury by wearing fur coats (Pomeranz,
1999). Asian markets have seen a considerable surge over the past several years, in their
willingness to dispose of excess income on luxury items (Yan-juan, 2010). Americans are more
willing to spend their disposable income on items such as fur coats, when the economy is

16. 16
growing and stronger (Scmidt, 1990). The only drawback, willingness to spend their disposable
income on luxury items, such as fur coats, is that many Americans are more concerned about the
source supplying the pelts than most Asian and other European consumers (Gilbert, 1991).
Furbearing pelts are derived from two sources: wild animals trapped global by trappers,
or animals in domestic fur farms (Guangcai, 2010). Due to life cycles, mink and foxes are easily
farmed, or ranch for their pelts (Jacobson & Decker, 2006). Pelts from beavers, muskrats, nutria,
wolverine, and opossum are primarily received from wild stocks (Fraser, 2001). The overall
grade determination of all raw pelts is lowered based on factors such as: fur slippage, tears in the
pelt, or improper fleshing, or removal of fate and meat, these imperfections are less in farmed
and ranched animals, so their furs superior fur pelts than from wild stocks (Stains, 1979). The
colonial days of Daniel Boone, Lewis and Clark, when a daily supply of skins and furs were
required by life’s daily necessaries, are long gone. (Utley, 2004) Today, the most common seen
end product of trapping is most often seen as the fur coat (Utley, 2004).
Trapping has been an integral part of the fur trade business, and has contributed to the
economy and to wildlife management since early colonial America (Hubert, 1982). Pelts still
continue providing their economic bread and butter values, fueling national economy, and
assisting in maintain a healthy trade balance (Agustín & Jaksić, 1986). Trapping continues to
offer a valuable wildlife management service and economic benefit in terms of disposable
income, jobs throughout the fur industry, and in maintaining a better American trade imbalance
(National American Fur Auction - NAFA, 2014, Tieqiu, 2007).
Today, trapping is no longer the vehicle supplying products that could be individually
exchanged for other goods and services such as household goods, clothing, guns, and

17. 17
ammunition (Coclanis, 2011). Trapping has transitioned from a cultural way of life as a method
of subsistence for the survival of daily life, but as an outdoor recreation activity pursuit,
providing an additional avenue for increasing an individual’s disposable income (Boddicker,
1981). Currently, only in Alaska and many provinces of Canada, is age-old subsistence trapping
practiced today (Klein, Tremblay, Fontan & Guay, 2007). The trapping industry provides high
paying jobs both skilled and unskilled related manufacturing labor jobs, and jobs in retail,
particular in the high end area (Kiessling, Balekjian & Oehmichen, 2009). Trapping also allows
individual to have additional disposable cash to spend which further increases economic
development, and growth (Kolokolnikov, 2013). Commercial fur trapping, once the primary
economic pursuits of the indigenous inhabitants of the Northwest Territories, now accounts for
only a small segment of the income received by native people (Ray, 1990).
Trapping has long been a recognizable valuable wildlife management service, and
tool (Fur Takers of America, 2014). State wildlife agencies have been collecting trapping license
fees, since the early to mid - 20th century (Decker & Bachelor, 1993). Trapping has been viewed
by many wildlife agencies for many years more as a commercial venture, as compared as a
recreational outdoors activity (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Until recently, have
financial resources have been dedicated, or invested in determining the growth, progress, and
economic impacts on a state’s furbearer management program (Gill, 1990).
Furbearer harvest sizes are determined by several factors: climatic conditions, and
economic markets (Smith, Brisbin & White, 1984). Weather changes will affect daily
movements of animals, within, and throughout their habitat ranges (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). Prior to arrival of low weather pressure systems wildlife seem to become
more active (Glass, Siemer, Brown, Batcheller & DiStefano, 1992). Trappers sometimes hesitate

18. 18
to check their traps with their perception of current weather conditions (Boddicker, 1981).
Meteorological conditions during harvest periods, and season lengths will determine the number
of days theoretically accessible for hunting and trapping activities, and influence total harvest
efforts (Westhoff, Fabiosa, Beghin & Meyers, 2004). Global warming could also be link changes
fur harvest (National Trappers Association - (NTA), 2014). Species size is an essential
component because it regulates irrefutable animal’s accessibility (Wolfe & Chapman, 1987).
Supply and demand influences target species, trappers want to know which pelts will bring the
greatest economic returns (Woodward, Hazel & Gaffney, 1985). Fur markets are similar to stock
markets with respect to fluctuating and inflation prone dollar (National American Fur Auction -
(NAFA), 2014).
Trapping harvest and economic data has only recently been compiled, and is not done
by all State agencies (Muth, Daigle, Zwick & Giass, 1996). State agencies only now, are
developing quality economic sustainable data of trapping, and furbearer resources (Linscombe,
1995). The importance of quality trapping catch data, and equivalent economic values of pelts
would allow state wildlife agencies, and nonprofit agencies the opportunity to accurately
promote positive benefits of trapping and the effect on furbearer management through the United
States (Erickson & Sampson, 1978). Trapping’s economic values and benefits are finally being
given equal values of its wildlife management benefits in maintaining sustainable wildlife
populations (Muth, Daigle, Zwick & Giass, 1996).
Published trapping literature published from the last decade of the late 20th
century and
into 21st
century, has been concentrated on social and moral opinions surrounding trapping
(Gentile, 1987). Far less literature, has been published on the current picture of trapping as its
affects both economic and wildlife management values that it provides (Batcheller, Decker,

19. 19
Hamilton & Organ, 2000). More current trapping economic related research would validate
actual trapping’s economic benefits on the national economy, allow for better use of trapping
fees, and gross national product (GNP), create better long term furbearer wildlife management
plans, allow for sound environmental policy decisions with respect the trapping, and assist in the
lobbying for legislative protection from the anti - trapping movement (Muth, Zwick, Mather,
Organ, Daigle & Jonker, 2006).
American Fur Company harvested annually, during the period 1829 to 1831, an
average of 708,000 furs, mostly muskrat, raccoon, and beaver (Canada Encyclopedia, 2014).
The average annual price of muskrat pelts in the mid-19th
century, for example, was only nine
cents; although the number of muskrats exported to England increased by 8,930,000 during the
decade, the economic value added was only $80,280 (Yang, Zhang & ZHou, 2011). Beaver
(Castor Canadensis) pelts always have dominated the fur market (United States Geological
Survey, 2014). It was the most desired furbearer, not for the entire pelt, but its fiber, the short
downy gray felt at the base of the guard hairs (Thomas & Weber, 1999).
During the period 1828 to 1833, fur trade economic growth reached a pinnacle such that
all of the trapping fur companies expanded operations (Smith, 1973). Gross National Product
exports rose steadily from $442,000 in 1827 to $842,000 in 1833, the latter figure is highest for
any year since the War of 1812 (Thomas & Weber, 1999). Despite many accounts that the
depression of 1837-39, triggered the decline in fur industry, the overall exported fur pelt value
exports remained stable from 1836 to 1838; thereafter, it rose sharply until 1841 (Usher, 1970).
The latter half of the 19th
century, fur industry witnessed a wide shift to demand for seal pelts
(Muth, Daigle, Zwick & Giass, 1996). The aggregate value of pelts taken during this, period,

20. 20
1870 to 1891, was $29,788,582 (Net, 2009). At the same time the United States government
collected $4,894,323 in tax revenue (Haeger, 1988).
Two 16th
century important organizational changes transpired that funded increased
economic growth (Net, 2009). During the period from mid-16th
century to the War of 1812, no
powerful fur trading monopolies existed in the United States (Harte, 1991). In 1870, there were
less than 200 furriers prevailing in the United States (Haeger, 1988). They employed 2,900
people and had a gross product of almost $9,000,000 (Harte, 1991). By the end of the century,
furriers had grown 500%, employing 10 times the original number of people, a capital
investment of $30,000,000, and a gross product of over $55,000,000 (Haeger, 1988). This rapid
increase can be attributed to Americans willingness to buy a luxury whose value was enhanced
increased advertising (Thomas & Weber, 1999).
Trapping continues to offer one of the best wildlife management tools (Truth About
Fur, 2014; International Fur Trade Federation, 2014). The short term goal of furbearer
management is the conservation of furbearer populations (Leopold, 1943). The overall ultimate
long term goal is maintaining sustainable furbearer populations (Organ, Decker, DiStefano,
Elowe, Rego & Mirick, 1996). Recreational and professional trapping offers the best
opportunities to protect the furbearer resources (Fur Takers America – FTA, 2014).
Trapping provides many wildlife management values. Trapping assist in the reduction
of diseases within the wildlife populations (Fur Takers America – FTA, 2014). Trapping allows
the transplanting of species from one area to another, especially when long distances are
involved (Scott, 1988). Trapping provides the recreational trapper access to compensatory
mortality, or natural losses that naturally occur, while providing some additional personal
disposable income, and fuel their local economies (Deems & Pursley, 1983). Because trappers

21. 21
are knowledgeable of animal behavior acquired through personal knowledge, and trapper
educational courses, proper placement of traps on the target animal’s line of travel reduces the
possible of non-targeted catches (Payne, 1980).
Trapping affords wildlife managers to control predators, when they are causing
economic damages, or when they are impacting heavily on other wildlife species, or habitats
(Schipper, 1987). Trapping removes a portion of each species, reducing over population and over
taxation of habitat resources (Organ, DiStefano, Elowe, Rego & Mirick, 1996). Many people
have indicated they have seen an increased overall fitness due to their outdoor trapping
recreation pursuits such as trapping (D.Larionov, personal communication, February 2, 2014).
American fur pelts are predominately exported to Canada (Table 1), and the emerging
markets either directly, or indirectly to developing countries such as China and Russia, which are
the main consumers of luxury goods, and do very well in spite of the financial crisis hurting
Global marketplaces (Liu, Pannell & Liu, 2009).
Table 1 – US International Trade Statistics
U.S International Trade Statistics Value of Exports
[In Thousands of Dollars.
Beg of 2000 Beg of 2005 Beg of 2010 Beg of 2014
Exports Exports Exports Exports
Country Name F.A.S.Value Basic F.A.S.Value Basic F.A.S.Value Basic
F.A.S.Value
Basic
"World" 144941 174276 73039 246705
Country Name F.A.S.Value Basic F.A.S.Value Basic F.A.S.Value Basic
F.A.S.Value
Basic
"China" 4696 44629 294 152355
Source (United States Census Bureau - Department of Commerce, 2014).

22. 22
Canada’s fur trade contributes more than $800,000,000 (Fur Institute of Canada, 2014).
Canadian trappers, and fur farm owners earn more than $120,000,000 annual in pelt sales 1990
National American Fur Auction - NAFA, 2014). In 2006, fur exports subsidized $226,000,000
to Canada’s balance of trade (Fur Institute of Canada, 2014).
China is the world’s leading fabricator of fur garments (Hsieh-Yi, Fu, Rissi, & Maas,
2014). Added to its domestic production of fur, China imports 5,000,000 mink pelts, and
1,500,000 fox pelts each year, Chinese customs statistics indicate a net volume of fur imports,
and exports for 2003 of $997,500,000 up 42.5% from 2002 (Yan-juan, 2010).
China has invested heavily in fur farms in the last several years (Guangcai, 2010).
Eighty-five percent of the world's fur originates from farms (Fraser, 2001). Most Chinese fur
farms were established during the past 10 years (Hu & Wang, 2009). Chinese fur industry
sources have stated, that a growing number of international fur traders, processors, and fashion
designers have progressively shifted their business into China, where inexpensive labor, and the
absence of restraining welfare parameters create wider profit margins (Fontenoy, 1997).
Beginning in China’s late Qing period, along with the ceaseless escalating, and
embracing of Sino-Western trade, the fur trade gradually became the vehicle of all commerce,
and finance in primary fur production region in Northwest China (Li, LV & Wang, 2008). China
has become the second leading importer of American fur pelts (Prasad, 2004). Many economists
have questioned published economic reports, as to the question of whether China's resilient
export encroachment has led to noteworthy changes in the import prices, and thus inflation
successes, of its trading partners (Yan-juan, 2010). Their evidence suggests that the shock of
Chinese exports on global import prices has been, while non- negligible, fairly restrained
(Prasad, 2004).

23. 23
Global fur sales totaled more than $13,000,000,000 in 2009, which is an increase of
over 58% compared to the end of the 20th
century (Hsieh-Yi, Fu, Rissi & Maas, 2014). Since the
beginning of the 21st
century, fur market has grown by almost 10% annually, significantly more
than other luxury items (Skov, 2005). The fur industry endured complications in the late 20th
century due to amplified moral cognizance of ethical aspects of trapping, or breeding animals for
fur (J. Martin, personal communication, March 6, 2014). The fur trade has been resuscitated in
response to resilient demand from developing nations such as China (Yang, Zhang & ZHou,
2011).
China is reportedly now the world's third largest consumer of luxury goods, after Japan,
and the United States, accounting for 12% of global sales, according to Goldman Sachs, and
could overtake both the United States and Japan by 2015 (Kiessling, Balekjian & Oehmichen,
2009). With only a decade of development, the Chinese Fur Processing Industry became the
largest in the world (Calkins, 2000). According to European industry sources, 80 % of world’s
pelts are processed, and manufactured in China (Kolokolnikov, 2013). China’s fur apparel
exports reached $998,000,000 accounting for 77 % of China’s total fur product (Yang, Zhang &
ZHou, 2011).
Table # 2 – Pelt Prices
Source: (Yang, Zhang & ZHou, 2011)

24. 24
Pelt values, or prices (Table 2) are determined when the range of furbearing animal
populations can distribute furs, either through hunting, and trapping activities, reaches stability
with current requirements of fashion consumers, or when the supply of furs meets the overall
demands of the market (Shuhua, 2005). The United States imports of raw pelts (Table 3) that
were manufactured, or produced in garments has remained constant for the period 2005 – 2009,
while exports exploded in the period of 2008 to 2009 (Yang, Zhang & ZHou, 2011).
Table 3 - Raw skins manufactured into fur garments
Source: Based on Petry, Liting (2010). Retrieved from (Yang, Zhang & ZHou, 2011)
The fur industry has proven in to be resilient in terms of growing new sales, developing,
and creating planned market expansions in spite of the roller coaster global economy downturn
of the early 20th
century (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2014). An increasing surge in
mink and fox pelts (Table 3) has caused a corresponding price in the pelts (Yang, Zhang &
ZHou, 2011). That has caused the average price of mink to skyrocket (Table 5) over the last 10
years with a staggering 112% rise in prices (Fur Institute of Canada, 2014). Economic price

25. 25
increases are being driven by a persistent rise in global retail demand, with over 400 worldwide
renowned designers, including John Galliano and Jean Paul Gaultier, integrating fur in their
designs this season (Hudson Bay Company, 2014).
Evidence has determined that fur as a luxury good has not been affected much by
global recession (Yan-juan, 2010). Actually, the opposite, in spite of it, the trade is prospering as
never before (Yang, Zhang & ZHou, 2011).
Table 4 – Raw fox & mink pelts
Source: (Saga Furs, 2014)
Mink (Mustela lutreola) has always commanded the one of the highest economic prices
(National American Fur Auction - NAFA, 2014). Furs have proven a similar investment like
gold, or silver trading (Hudson Bay Company, 2014).
Current fur market situation is characterized by steady and steep price level growth

26. 26
(National American Fur Auction - NAFA, 2014). Speculations that the price level tendency
resembles a growing bubble, which cannot swell forever; especially the mink market is
overheated for sure, the price is going to drop dramatically at some point, the question is when
and to which level (International Fur Trade Federation, 2014). Most likely, if the decrease
happens, this should not be disastrous for the market, as it is foreseeable that mink price will
probably get back to the levels of 2010 - 2011 seasons and remain there (A. Herscovici, personal
interview communication, April, 12, 2014).
The current market trend cannot remain boundlessly, and variation is always
Excruciating for the industry, however, the markets do tend to incapacitated all the difficulties
(International Fur Trade Federation, 2014). United States and Europe have shown progressive
dynamics in conventional, and the age of persecution of the fur industry is irreversibly an end
(Fur Institute of Canada, 2014).
Table 5 – Green / raw mink fur prices, period ending December 2011
Source: (Fur Institute of Canada, 2014)

27. 27
Fur prices are set to remain high in future years (D. Larionov, personal communication, February
2, 2014). The industry for fur and leather apparel manufacturing has 107 establishments with 844
employees producing slightly over $100,000,000 in shipments (United States Census Bureau,
2014).
License fees (Table 6) are fairly complex in the United States (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014). One issue is that many States, allow the hunting, and trapping of
furbearing animals such as raccoons, bobcats, skunk, otter, muskrat, beaver, nutria, fox, fisher,
wolverine, mink, opossum (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Consequently,
revenue license fees are collected through both a small game hunting license, and statewide
trapping licenses (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). For example, a raccoon
hunter would purchase a hunting license, while a raccoon trapper would be required to purchase
a trapping, normally at a considerable high price (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 2014). Since hunting, and trapping seasons occur at the same time, pelts from
raccoons would be harvested (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). In most cases,
hunting licenses fees are earmarked for general funds, assisting in funding wildlife management
budget expenses, while trapping license are earmarked for general funds, assisting in funding
furbearer species management budget expenses (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
In some states, like North Carolina, States offer a comprehensive sportsman hunting
license, includes big game and small game hunting, but does not include trapping activities
(North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). North Carolina for nearly 50 years has
offered a countywide as well as a statewide trapping license (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). In North Carolina, as well as other states like Missouri, fur dealers and fur
buyers which act as fur auction agents to the individual trappers, are also required to purchase a

28. 28
trapping permit (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Two types of fur
traders are issued by States for the authorization to purchase furs: (1) fur buyers who purchase
furs during and shortly following harvest seasons; and (2) fur dealers who conduct transactions
throughout the permit year (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2014).
Table 6 – Various States’ trapping license fees
North Carolina:
Resident Fur Dealer License $60.00
Nonresident Fur Dealer License $300.00
Fur Dealer Station License $120.00
State Trapping License (resident) $25.00
County Trapping License (resident of the State, not particular county) $10.00
Source: (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014)
Maine
Resident
Junior Trapping License (10 to 15 years) - $9.00
Apprentice Trapping (16 years and older) - $35.00
Adult Trapping License (16 years and older) - $35.00
Disabled Veterans, Native Americans, and Over 70 years of age - No Fee
Bear Trapping License (10 years and older) - $27.00
Resident Serviceman Trapping License (16 years and older) - $3.00
Resident Serviceman Dependent Trapping License (10 years and older) - $10.00
Nonresident
Nonresident Trapping License (10 years and older) - $317.00
Apprentice Trapping License (16 years and older) - $317.00
Bear Trapping License (10 years and older) - $67.00
Source: (Maine Department Inland and Fisheries Wildlife, 2014)

29. 29
Iowa:
Resident Fur Harvest $7.50
Non-resident Fur Harvest $202.00
Source: (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2014)
Kentucky
Resident / Non resident
Annual Trapping $20.00 $130.00
Annual Landowner/Tenant trapping $10.00 not available
Annual Youth (ages 12-15) Trapping $5.00 not available
Source: (Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, 2014)
Michigan
Previous Price New Price
Fur Harvester $15.00 $15.00
Fur Harvester Senior $6.00 $6.00
Wolf Nonresident $500.00 $500.00
Wolf Resident $100.00 $100.00
Source: (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2014)
Alaska
Resident Annual Low Income Hunting / Sport Fishing / Trapping $5.00
Resident Annual Hunting $25.00
Resident Annual Hunting $25.00
Source: (Alaska Department of Fish & Game, 2014)
Kansas
Resident Non resident
Fur Dealer $102.50 $402.50
Fur harvester $20.50 $252.50
Fur harvester (junior) $12.50 not available
Fur harvester (Lifetime) $442.50 not available
Source: (Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, 2014)

30. 30
Idaho
Resident Non resident
Taxidermist/Fur Buyer $ 40.00 $ 170.00
Trapping - Adult $ 26.75 $ 301.75
Trapping - Junior (Through 17 years) $ 7.25
Source: (Idaho Fish & Game, 2014)
Texas
Wholesale Fur Dealer Resident $189.00
Trapper's Resident $19.00
Source: (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 2014)
Florida
Furbearer Trapping License (Resident and non-resident) $26.50
Source: (Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2014)
Vermont
Trapping $20.00 (resident)
$300.00 (nonresident)
Trapping (5 years) $94.00 (resident)
$1,494.00 (nonresident)
Trapping (under age 18) $10.00 (resident)
$30.00 (nonresident)
Source: (Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department, 2014)
Fur buyer and fur dealer licenses are based on a calendar year, as opposed to trapping, or budget
seasons (National Trappers Association – NTA, 2014). Hunting licenses only cloud, and
compound where the revenue funds should be earmarked, because in most states, some of the
furbearing species like foxes, and particular raccoon may be hunted, concurrently with trapping
season, but pelts would still be available for sale to auction houses, or fur dealers (Association of

31. 31
Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Additionally, in some instances, there is a single hunting
license to cover one, two, or all three of the following: 1). small game species,
2). furbearing animals, 3). big game species like American Black Bear (Ruses Americanos),
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Wild Turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), wild boar (Sus scrofa), elk (Cervus canadensis), or North American
Moose (Alces alces) (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Some people feel that this
type of license structure, that trapping funds are not be fully allocated to trapping activities and
are just another non-targeted revenue sources for state wildlife agencies (Fur Takers America –
FTA, 2014).
Wildlife managers are seeing an increasing amount of decisions concerning urban
wildlife issues, urban dwellers, to urban sprawl invasion of wildlife habitat (Andelt, Phillips,
Schmidt & Gill, 1999). Urban sprawl is consistently causing habitat destruction (Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, 2014). Concern over earlier excessive furbearer exploitation,
and deteriorating habitat have led to wildlife managers, re- thinking when to imitate trapping
seasons, licensing of trappers, and other regulatory actions by state wildlife agencies (Hubert,
1982). Society is increasing its range into wildlife’s habitat (Andelt, Phillips, Schmidt & Gill,
1999). However, wildlife are fighting back, as evident of increased in sittings of various fur-
bearing on non-furbearing wildlife species in urban and unseen areas before, have public
concerns over possible transmission of rabies from infected furbearing animals such as skunks
and raccoons (International Fur Trade Federation, 2014).
Trapping and hunting licensing cost are also being look at more meticulously
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). As budgets are becoming leaner every year,
wildlife managers are being faced with finding the most cost effective means of furbearer

32. 32
management, in any increasing anti-trapping public viewpoint (Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies, 2014).
Furbearer management afflictions have been increasing in number, scope, and
intensity during the past decades in response to 1) rapidly mounting requirements for furbearers
and their products, 2) legislation of endangered species regulations and treaties, 3) a major
decline in upland wildlife hunting prospects, and 4) growing anti-hunting, and ant trapping
attitudes (Hubert, 1982). Luxury coats have seen a real surge of popularity recent years, even in a
growing environment of anti-hunting, and ant trapping attitudes fueled by non-profit groups like
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - PETA), and Humane Society (Schmidt, 1990).
The legislation of endangered species regulations, and treaties has superseded positive trapping
wildlife values (Kiessling, Balekjian & Oehmichen, 2009). Urban sprawl continues to eliminate
upland wildlife habitat that is also critical for several furbearing species (Fraser, 2001).
Therefore, furbearer harvest management programs, now, and in the future, will require a keen
skill of the variables which eventually determine sustainability of furbearer populations, and of
uninterrupted anticipated harvests (Erickson, 1978; Hubert, 1982).
Trapping research, where it exists, most commonly generally falls into two distinctive
categories: (1) manipulation of harvest control, and unconventional designs for harvesting
furbearers. Elements include regulating lengths of seasons, geographic location of harvest,
number of animals harvested, means of setting, and checking traps, frequency of checking trap
(most States now require twenty-four hours), and type and size of traps permitted. (2).
development, and assessment of different types of traps to measure their capture, or kill
efficiency, selectivity for target species, and the extent of injury sustained by captured animals
(International Fur Trade Federation, 2014). Two areas that are getting the most attention

33. 33
are: (1). Modeling estimating harvest rates which would assist in the determining overall fur
values, (2). Better research in construction and manufacture of better steel traps, snares, and
alternative traps (Kolokolnikov, 2013; Peck & Heidt, 1985).
Many people have pointed to Fur Institute of Canada - FIC as the future of trap
technology (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). The Institute is Canada’s national
center for trap technology, and furbearer management, is supported by a broad spectrum of
interest groups, both private, and governmental (Fur Institute Canada - FIC, 2014). Fur Institute
of Canada - (FIC) main objectives are (1). Acquire funds for trap research, and furbearer
management from trapper license fees, a tax on traps, trapping equipment, fur products, and
allocate funds to a national center, or to state agencies (2). Increase support of trapping as a
wildlife management technique through joint efforts by industry, government, wildlife managers,
researchers, trappers, sportsmen, and public health and agricultural interests (Fur Council of
Canada, 2014). Many wildlife managers would like to see something similar in the United States
(Innis, 1999). American’s moral thinking will prevent any future significant funding of any type
(Gentile, 1987). More research funds will need to be offered through non-profit proactive
trapping friendly organizations such as the National Trappers Association, state trapper
associations, and other agencies such as the Soil & Water Conservation Society (Soil & Water
Conservation Society - SWCS, 2014).
Harvest levels are liable to designate changes in the population level as long as trapping
pressure is comparatively constant from one year to another (Andelt, Phillips, Schmidt & Gill,
1999). During the past 10 years, international fur trade has been on the upturn, with markets,
sales volumes, and prices have been growing significantly (Kolokolnikov, 2013). Furthermore,

34. 34
no substantial correlation between price, and harvest levels during 1925-49 has been found for
mink, and muskrats (Boddicker, 1981).
In North Carolina, all of these species are classified as furbearers: Muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Bobcat (Lynx rufus),
American Mink (Neovison vison), North American Beaver (Castor canadensis), North American
River Otter (Lontra canadensis), Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata ), Red Fox (Vulpes
vulpes), and North America’s only marsupial, Virginia opossum (Didelphia virginiana) are
trapped for their pelt, nutria (Myocastor coypus), are classified as non-game, but are trapped in
eastern North Carolina, Grey Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and
Coyote (Canis latrans ) are classified as a game animals are taken only by hunting (North
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
North America’s largest rodent, the American Beaver (Castor Canadensis) was a
significant part of North Carolina’s economic base, until the mid-nineteenth century (North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Its pelt was most prize of trade in the colonies
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Trapping pushed the beaver to near extinction in
most sections of the United States, including North Carolina (Woodward, Hazel & Gaffney,
1985). The last known original native beaver was taken near the beginning of the 20th
century
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
In early 20th
century, North Carolina had started a restocking in Sandhills region of
North Carolina’s coastal plain (Woodward, Hazel & Gaffney, 1985). Due to the high pelt prices,
restocking continued into the mid 1950’s (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
2014). The beaver has made a remarkable recovery, and its populations have remained strong
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).

35. 35
In recent years, urban sprawl has infringed the beavers’ habitat (North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). In 1985, a regional panel was set up to look at
depredation damage in Eastern North Carolina and offered several solutions (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 1985). One individual suggested that recordings of rushing water could be
played in desired locations and the beavers would attempt to fix the problem (M. Mosley,
personal communication, March 1, 2014). Others suggested the beaver classified and managed as
an invasive species (S. Garth, personal communication, March 1, 2014). Some waterfowl hunters
suggested that flooded tree farms owners could charge hunting fees to offset the commercial of
trees (M. Gibb, personal communication, March 1, 2014).
The beaver is best trapped with the usage of a double spring foot trap as a land based trap,
or a 220 body gripping trap as a submerged trap (Woodward, Hazel & Gaffney, 1985). The
positive impacts of beaver ponds far outweigh the negative impacts by slowing run-off from
drainage areas and retarding erosion (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). A basket style
trap has also been used to relocate beavers (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Beavers
are the only animal, dried rounded and fur side out (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Bobcats (Lynx rufus) are active year-round, and exhibit dawn to dusk activity also
referred as crepuscular activity (Bateman, 2003). Bobcats are found throughout varies ranges of
habitat, but they tend to inhibit the wooded habitats of the Coastal Plain, and mountains (North
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Bobcats are classified as both a game animal and furbearer; consequently seasons and
licenses exist depending on method of taking (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
2014). Bobcats are the only wild cat found in the State (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies,

36. 36
2014). Bobcats were thought to be a threat to livestock throughout the 19th
and 20th
centuries
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Bobcats favor habitats in hardwood bottoms, young pine stands, all found in the eastern
side of the State (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). In the mountain ranges, bobcats
favor the mature forests which hold hollow trees, rock piles, and brush piles (North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Pelts were nearly worthless until 1970, U.S. Endangered Species Act, and The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), were enacted and the cats became protected,
and regulated under Federal law (International Fur Trade Federation, 2014). Any bobcat pelt
now required a (CITES) tag which imposes another fee on trappers and hunters (International
Fur Trade Federation, 2014).
The recommended traps for bobcats are either the coil spring, or the long spring
(National Trappers Association, 2014). They are case skinned fur side out (North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) is semi-aquatic, rodent; native to North America has been
introduced into Europe, Asia, and South America (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Muskrats are herbivorous (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Muskrats are abundantly
found throughout North America, Canada, and in North Carolina are often confused with the
nutria, which is trapped as a non-game animal in the coastal areas of the State (Association of
Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Muskrats have a round flattened tail which helps them swim (North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 2014). Muskrats live in colonies, which is helpful when trapping,
because multiple catches are possible, when several traps are set in the same area (North

37. 37
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Muskrats have a baculum, or a penis bond (Bateman,
2003).
In the North, muskrats tend to build mud lodges called push-ups (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014). In the south, they burrow into stream and pond embankments, and
frequently inhibit golf course ponds and lakes (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
They are most destructive, when tunneling in pond embankments serving as golf cart pathways
(Bateman, 2003). Once golf cart traffic collapses tunnels, muskrat dens are destroyed and release
the embankment has be known to cause catastrophic property damage (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). A sudden rise in water levels, during sudden severe rainstorms, is a common
reason for muskrat mortalities (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Muskrats are best trapped using a single long spring foothold trap set as a drowning set,
or a 110 body trap, which kills instantly, placed either under the ice, or within muskrat’s
channels allowing animals to swim through the trap (North Carolina Trappers Association,
2014). The two muskrat scent glands, when dried, are manufactured into cosmetics (Bateman,
2003). Muskrat is one of two, only furbearers that is skinned fur side in and without the tail
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Muskrat flesh is eaten; meat is very lean and dark, similar in taste to raccoon (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). The leanness of the flesh reflects the of lack of fat, which means a
trapper generally has to spend less time fleshing or scraping fat from the pelt, before drying
(National Trappers Association, 2014). The guard hairs are long and course, but the underlining
fur is short and soft (National American Fur Auction – NAFA, 2014). Their pelts are used in
manufacture of luxury coats, hats and gloves (Harte, 1991).
Raccoon (Procyon lotor) is a nocturnal, omnivorous, mammal, native to North

38. 38
America (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Its ranges from Northern
Canada, continues down through the United States, Mexico, to Central America. It has been
introduced into Europe, parts of the former Soviet Union, parts of Asia, and Japan (National
Trappers Association, 2014).
The raccoon’s most noticeable physical feature is the face mask (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). The face mask gives the raccoon the appearance of a bandit, to which the
raccoon lives up in behavioral patterns (National Trappers Association, 2014). Some evidence
suggests that raccoons are not solitary, but engage in gender-specific behavior (Bateman, 2003).
Raccoons are similar to muskrats, that they also have a baculum (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). The raccoon lacks an opposable thumb, which prevents the animal having
the same dexterity of primates (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Raccoon have a
tapetum lucidum behind the retina, which is also found in cats, which allows the raccoon to see
exceptionally well in twilight (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Raccoons are highly vulnerable to canine distemper and rabies (North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). The second leading cause of deaths of raccoons is
canine distemper. Although, canine distemper is not harmful, or transmitted to humans, it can be
transmitted to other canines (National Trappers Association, 2014). There is no known vaccine,
and most animals are euthanized (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Rabies
transmission is a valid concerned, particularly based on the raccoon’s adaptable to urban habitats
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). In 2001 – 2002, experimental rabies oral
vaccines were applied to bait of foxes to lessen the spread of rabies with limited success
(Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003). They are also carriers of a nematode (Baylisascaris

39. 39
procyonis), that can cause serious illness to humans (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies,
2014).
Raccoons are best trapped using a coil spring trap, or long spring trap, since the
possibility of catching domestic dogs, or other non-targeted animals exist (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). An alternative trap to a steel trap is the Egg Trap, which has been
on the market for the last several years, and is promoted as “dog proof”, due to the trap’s trap
door insufficient permit entry of a dog’s paw (National Trappers Association, 2014).
The raccoon flesh is edible, dark in color, and slightly greasy (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). Raccoon hides are exceptional laden with fat which must be
completely fleshed, or scraped completely before drying, this accounts for the flesh tasting
greasy (National Trappers Association, 2014). The pelts are case skinned fur side out (National
Trappers Association, 2014). The pelts are manufactured in hats, caps, and fill length coats
(Schipper, 1987).
American Mink (Neovison vison) is a carnivorous, semiaquatic, mammal, native to
North America, and is found throughout the United States and Canada (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). It has been introduced in Europe, Scandinavia, and in South America
escapees from fur farms, has caused the mink to become an invasive species (Association of Fish
& Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Mink are active throughout the winter in their range (North
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
The American Mink differs in many respects to the European Mink (Feldhamer,
Thompson & Chapman, 2003). The body is more streamlined; molars are more massive
(National Trappers Association, 2014). The fur is thicker, longer, softer, and more close-fitting
fur is denser (Feldhamer, Thompson & Chapman, 2003). Both species have a well-developed

40. 40
baculum that is triangular in cross section and is round at the end (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). Mink, as well as all members of the weasel family, have the capable of
delayed implantation (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Mink are the most commonly furbearing animal raised on farms (Feldhamer, Thompson
& Chapman, 2003). Ranched, or farmed raised mink have higher pelt quality based on many
elements like feed and diet (Feldhamer, Thompson & Chapman, 2003). Mink pelts are usually
manufactured into coats, jackets and capes (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Any
inferior pelt, from either ranched or wild stocks, is utilized for scarves and trims (Pomeranz,
1999).
Mink are best caught using traps are either coil spring or long spring for land sets, and
220 body gripping trap as a submerged set (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Trapped mink have shown evidence of broken or damage teeth, incurred while attempting to
eradicate themselves from land based steel traps (Feldhamer, Thompson & Chapman, 2003).
Mink are case skinned, fur side out (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis) is a carnivorous, semiaquatic, mammal,
native to North America (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). The early colonization of
America diminished otter’s habitat range (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Otter’s habitat exists wherever water is abundant (Kimber & Kollias, 2000).
River Otters are highly vulnerable to environmental pollution, particular relating to
water quality and mercury (Kimber & Kollias, 2000). Random sampling of otter populations are
used to monitor certain substances as mercury, in water courses inhabited by otters (Association
of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Evidence suggests that an Otter’s nearsightness may be an evolutional adaptation to

41. 41
improve underwater vision (Feldhamer, Thompson & Chapman, 2003). Otters’ feet have five
toes on non-retractable claws, and webbing between the toes which aids in swimming
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). River Otters exhibit delayed implantation in
their reproduction cycle (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Otters also have
baculum that is triangular in cross section and is round at the end (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014).
Restoration projects of otters have increased their numbers in areas where populations
have been historically low (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Today, otter
populations are healthy, sustaining and stable (North Carolina Wildlife Resources, 2014). Their
population is primarily controlled through trapping seasons (Feldhamer, Thompson & Chapman,
2003).
River otter is the other North Carolina furbearer, that must be monitored under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act and The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) (North Carolina Wildlife Resources, 2014). Any river otters trapped must be tagged
with (CITES) tag which imposes another fee on trappers and hunters (International Fur Trade
Federation, 2014).
Otters provide excellent wildlife management benefits, by reducing invasive fish species
which complete would with native trout and other fish (Serfass, Brooks, Swimley, Rymon &
Hayden, 1996). Otter pelts are skinned fur side out (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Pelts are soft and luxurious (Saga Furs, 2014). Pelts are typically manufactured into coats
(National Trappers Association, 2014).
Virginia Opossum (Didelphia virginiana) is the only marsupial in North America, north

42. 42
of Mexico (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). In the Deep South, opossum is
commonly referred as possum (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Opossums are a
successful, nocturnal, solitary mammal (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Opossum are omnivorous, does not hibernate, but remains sheltered through winter months
(National Trappers Association, 2014). In the United States, opossum’s range includes: entire
Mississippi River watershed drainage, Mexico and Central America (National Trappers
Association, 2014).
Evidence has shown the opossum has one of the lowest encephalization quotients; a
measure of relative brain size, opossum’s brain is 5 times smaller than that of a raccoon
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). The opossum’s hind feet have opposable
thumbs, reach point nearly 180 degrees to the side of the foot (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). Opossum’s oral cavity contains 50 teeth, more than any other North
American mammal (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Opossums are resistant to rabies, similar to kangaroos in that their young are called joey
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Captive opossums have been known to be
cannibalistic (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Opossums provide ecological
benefits by consuming ticks responsible of the Lyme disease (National Trappers Association,
2014). Opossum is often seen in urban areas scouring garbage cans (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). Some evidence suggests, that vehicle traffic a leading cause of death, may be
due to opossums feeding on other road kills (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Opossums are more commonly hunted than trapped in North Carolina (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). Trappers prefer to use a coil spring when trapping opossums (North
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Fleshing is labor intensive due to the amount of fatty

43. 43
tissue attached to the pelt (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Opossum are skinned fur
side out (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Opossum are long prized for their meat,
particular in the rural areas of the Deep South (Dunaway, 1994). The meat is tasty but considered
extremely greasy (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) is best known for their striped black and white coat,
and its pungent arsenal (Andersen, Bernstien, Caret & Romanczyk, 1982). Skunk’s habitat
includes a mixture of hardwoods; both rush and open fields, which are interconnected wooded
ravines and rocky ridges (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). There are
about the size of a large house cat (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Skunks are most commonly located in forested areas and grasslands that provide a permanent
water source (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Their distribution is throughout
the lower 48 States, except in the Southwest, north into Canada as far as Nova Scotia and into
northern Mexico (National Trappers Association). In North Carolina, skunks are predominantly
found inhibiting Piedmont and Mountain regions, except coastal regions (North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Skunks are opportunistic in determining a den site (Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies, 2014). They will not hesitate to occupy a pre-existing den (National Trappers
Association, 2014). Skunks spend most of the day in dens located in slopes of hills (Association
of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). They will nest in any suitable structures including urban
abandoned buildings (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). In colder climates, some
skunks may sleep in these nests for several weeks of the chilliest season (Burt, 1976).
Skunks are omnivorous and opportunistic eaters with a varied diet (North Carolina

44. 44
Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Skunks’ diet consists of various berries, occasional meat
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Skunks are one of the primary predators of
honeybees, which are of great concern, given the current state of worldwide honeybee
populations (Burt, 1976; Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
The Great Horned Owl is a serious predator on skunks due to lack of smell (Burt,
1976). Vehicle traffic is a leading cause of death for skunks (Association of Fish & Wildlife
Agencies, 2014).
Skunks are carriers of the rabies virus (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
2014). Since skunks are very adaptable human urbanization, skunks are transmitters have
become a real concern (Schmidt, 1990). In 2001 – 2002, experimental rabies oral vaccines were
applied to bait of foxes to lessen the spread of rabies with limited success (Rupprecht, Hanlon &
Slate, 2003).
Skunks, as well as all members of the weasel family, have the capable of delayed
implantation (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Skunks are promiscuous in their
sexual habits (National Trappers Association, 2014). Skunks have baculum that is triangular in
cross section, and is round at the end (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Skunks are occasionally trapped in North Carolina, but the pelts and smelly scent prices,
which brought a fair price, have fallen off in recent years (North Carolina Trappers Association,
2014). Skunks have been known to spray traps in their attempt to free themselves (Andersen,
Bernstien, Caret & Romanczyk, 1982). The fur is skinned fur side out (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). The preferred skunk trap is a coil spring trap with an attached drag (National
Trappers Association, 2014). Pelts are manufactured into hats (National Trappers Association,
2014).

45. 45
Long-tailed Weasel (Mustela frenata) habitat includes a mixture of wooded areas, both
brushes and open fields, which are interconnected, wooded ravines and rocky ridges (Gehring &
Swihart, 2004). Weasels are most commonly located in forested areas, and grasslands that
provide a permanent water source (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Their
distribution is from southern Canada, throughout all of the United States and Mexico, down
through Central America, and South America (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
In North Carolina, Long-tailed Weasels are predominantly located in the Piedmont and
Mountains regions (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Long-tailed Weasels are opportunistic in determining a den site (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014). They will not hesitate to occupy a pre-existing den (National Trappers
Association, 2014). Weasels spend most of the day in dens located in slopes of hills (Association
of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). They will nest in any suitable structures including urban
abandoned buildings (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). In colder climates, some
weasels may sleep in these nests for several weeks of the chilliest season (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Long-tailed Weasels are bold, aggressive hunters, and known to attack animals
considerably bigger in size than themselves (Gehring & Swihart, 2004). Weasels are obligate,
carnivores consuming fresh, or alive carrion, and prey which has already been stored in its den
(Gehring & Swihart, 2004). Weasels prefer rodents when available (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Vehicle traffic is becoming a leading cause of death for weasels (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Weasels are carriers of the rabies virus (Association of Fish &
Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Weasels are promiscuous in their sexual habits (National Trappers

46. 46
Association, 2014). Long-tailed Weasel exhibit delayed implantation in their reproduction cycle
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Long-tailed Weasels have a baculum that is
triangular in cross section and is round at the end (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Long-tailed Weasel are occasionally trapped (North Carolina Trappers Association,
2014). Weasels are skinned fur side out (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Most
trappers prefer a coil spring trap with an attached drag (National Trappers Association, 2014).
Pelts are manufactured into hats (National Trappers Association, 2014).
Nutria (Myocastor coypus) is a nonnative herbivore, semiaquatic rodent, brought here
from South America by fur ranchers (Jojola, Witmer & Nolte, 2006). It occupies the same type
of aquatic habitat as muskrats, which explain why they are mistaken for muskrats (Dedah,
Kazmierczak & Keithly, 2010). Nutria has a rounded tail, where the muskrat is slightly flattened
(National Trappers Association – NTA, 2014). Nutria has a baculum similar to that of muskrats
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Nutria is commonly found throughout the Southeast, but their populations have caused
severe habitat destruction for nearly 75 years is most noticeable in Louisiana (National Trappers
Association – NTA, 2014). In Louisiana, nutria have reached catastrophic population levels that
bounties have been placed on the animals, based on number of tails collected (Dedah,
Kazmierczak & Keithly, 2010). Unfortunately, when this happens outside of normal trapping
seasons, pelts are not in prime condition and have no economic value (Jojola, Witmer & Nolte,
2006).
Nutria has lost all its fur value (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Studies
have shown, an increase of a bounty paid of four dollars, would increase further reduction of the
overall population, and may lead to an increase in nutria pelts (Dedah, Kazmierczak & Keithly,

47. 47
2010). Some wildlife managers have suggested that the bounty be raised by another dollar to a
new amount of five dollars (National Trappers Association – NTA, 2014).
Nutria trappers generally used the same traps used in obtaining muskrats (National
Trappers Association – NTA, 2014). The commonly used trap is a single long spring foothold
trap set as a drowning set, or a 110 body trap, which kills instantly, placed either under the ice, or
in nutria’s channels allowing animals to swim through the trap (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). Nutria is one of two, only furbearers that is skinned fur side in and without
the tail (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). The pelts are used in manufacture of luxury
coats, hats and gloves (Harte, 1991). Nutria has long guard hairs and soft under fur similar traits
found in muskrats (Saga Furs, 2014).
Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) is found throughout southern Canada, extending
down through much of the United States and into Northern Central America (National Trappers
Association – NTA, 2014). The gray fox prefers brushy or forested habitats (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). Gray fox prefers using their dens than red foxes (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). Its home range is usually less than a square mile in size, so it
becomes very familiar with its habitat (National Trappers Association – NTA, 2014). Both the
red and gray fox are found in North Carolina, only the gray fox is native to North Carolina
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
The gray fox was once the dominate species in the Eastern United States, until human
intrusion allowed the red fox to replace the gray fox (Vulpes vulpes) in many areas (National
Trappers Association – NTA, 2014). Gray fox is still the dominant fox in the West (North
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
The gray fox is distinguished by several features: grayish upper parts, strong neck and

48. 48
Black-tipped tail, a skull have widely separated temporal ridges that form a U-shape (National
Trappers Association – NTA, 2014). The gray fox is the only canine that can climb trees
(Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003). The gray fox is nocturnal (North Carolina Trappers
Association, 2014). The gray is monogamous in its life style (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003).
It is an ominous, solitary hunter (National Trappers Association, 2014). Rabbits are frequently
eaten by gray foxes (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
Gray foxes have the capable to withstand mange (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003).
Distemper is a leading cause of death of gray foxes (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003).
Distemper has been known to wipe out fox populations totally (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate,
2003). Gray fox are also vulnerable to parvo enteritis, rabies, roundworms, tapeworms, lice, and
mites (National Trappers Association, 2014). In 2001 – 2002, experimental rabies oral vaccines
were applied to bait of foxes to lessen the spread of rabies with limited success (Rupprecht,
Hanlon & Slate, 2003).
Trappers find a coil spring is the best trap in harvesting gray foxes (National Trappers
Association, 2014). The trap should be lightly covered with dirt, anchored underneath the trap
with a shock absorbing spring, which prevents the fox freeing itself from the trap (North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). The gray fox is case skinned, fur side out, with
the tail attached (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Pelts are manufactured into long
length coats (Saga Furs, 2014). Fur has long soft guard hairs and a softer undercoat (National
American Fur Auction, 2014).
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) are hunted, trapped, and raised in fur farms (Rupprecht,
Hanlon & Slate, 2003). Their range extends over most of North America from Alaska and
northern Canada, south to central Texas (National Trappers Association, 2014). They occur from

49. 49
the east coast westward through the Rocky Mountains, and throughout the Cascade Range in the
Pacific Northwest, and northern California (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
2014). In North Carolina, they are generally not found in the southern coastal plain (North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Red foxes are abundant throughout the
American Mississippi River watershed drainage area (National Trappers Association, 2014). Red
foxes are found through Asia and Europe (Saga Furs, 2014). It has been introduced into
Australia, where it is now considered a serious invasive species (National Trappers Association,
2014).
Red foxes generally have long body lengths for their mass, and have a high degree of
sexual dimorphism (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003). Red foxes have binocular vision
(National Trappers Association, 2014). Their pupils have nictitating membranes (North Carolina
Trappers Association, 2014). Red fox’s skulls are considered moderately narrow, and elongated
with small braincases (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Red fox’s muzzle are
narrow than domestic canines (National Trappers Association, 2014). Their hearing is acutely
keen (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). The winter fur is dense, soft, silky and
relatively long (Saga Furs, 2014). For the northern foxes, the fur is very long, dense and fluffy,
but is shorter, sparser and coarser in southern forms (North Carolina Trappers Association,
2014).
Red foxes are ominous within their varied diet (Bateman, 2003). Foxes are resistant to
fleas (National Trappers Association, 2014). However, red foxes are highly susceptible to
manage (Saga furs, 2014). They are carriers of the rabies virus (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate,
2003). In 2002 – 2003, research was conducted using, an experimental rabies oral vaccines as

50. 50
bait, while trapping foxes, in attempt to lessen the spread of rabies with limited success, it was
hoped that the process could be applied to coyotes (Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003).
Red fox are considered a leading, important furbearer animal harvested (Fur Takers of
America – FTA, 2014).Their pelts are manufactured into coats, jackets, scarfs, trimmings, and
muffs (National American Fur Auction - NAFA, 2014). They continue bring some of the world’s
highest pelt prices (Saga Furs, 2014).
A coil spring is the best trap in harvesting the red foxes (National Trappers Association,
2014). The trap should be lightly covered with dirt, anchored underneath the trap with a shock
absorbing spring, which prevents the fox freeing itself from the trap (North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 2014). The red fox is case skinned, fur side out, with the tail attached
(Saga Furs, 2014).
Coyote (Canis latrans) is a species of canine ranging from tip of South America,
northward through the United States including Alaska, as far north to Hudson Bay, and in
Canada, from the Pacific Ocean, east to the Atlantic Ocean (North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 2014). While the wolf’s (Canis lupus) overall range has been severely diminished
by urban sprawl, coyote has taken advantage of urban sprawl, by increasing its range, and
reproducing in human civilization’s backyard (Saga Furs, 2014).
Evidence has shown that a coyote brain case is akin to that of a domestic dog
(Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). The coyote’s hearing is slightly better than a
domestic dog (National Trappers Association, 2014). Coyotes prefer to travel in packs, and hunt
in pairs (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Coyotes evolved as diurnal mammals, but
have modified their behavior to nocturnal, due to human civilization (Fur Takers of America –
FTA, 2014). Coyote, as a rabies virus carrier, continues to be of concern in many parts of the

51. 51
United States (Fur Takers of America – FTA, 2014). In 2002 – 2003, research was conducted
using, an experimental rabies oral vaccines as bait, while trapping foxes, in attempt to lessen the
spread of rabies with limited success, it was hoped that the process could be applied to coyotes
(Rupprecht, Hanlon & Slate, 2003).
Female coyotes are monoestrous, which allows them to remain fertile for a period of
two to five days, during the breeding period from late January to the early March (North
Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Coyotes exhibit alloparental care (Gese & Grothe, 1995).
Evidence has shown that coyotes will interbreed with domestic dogs (Knowlton, Gese & Jaeger,
1999). Coyote growth rate is considerable faster than wolves, and unlike wolves, multiple
lactating females occur in coyote packs (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014).
Coyote pelts are manufactured into coats, jackets, scarfs, trimmings, and muffs
(National American Fur Auction - NAFA, 2014). They continue a fair pelt prices (Saga Furs,
2014). Most coyote pelts are harvested from western States (National Trappers Association,
2014).
In North Carolina, the coyote is classified, and hunted as a nongame animal (North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). Coyote trappers preferred trap is the coil spring
(National Trappers Association, 2014). Coyote traps should be lightly covered with dirt,
anchored underneath the trap, with a shock absorbing spring which prevents the coyotes freeing
itself from the trap (National Trappers Association, 2014). The coyote is case skinned, fur side
out, with the tail attached (Saga Furs, 2014).
North Carolina’s trappers harvest report (Table 7), shows a steady growth in harvest
numbers, license fees, and prices paid for raw pelts steadily throughout the 2002 – 2011 periods
(North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). This growth is directly related to urban

52. 52
sprawl rise in real estate development, continues to create new habitat for muskrats, increasing
harvest rates and future pelt prices (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). In large
metropolitan cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, real estate growth can be attributed to
completion of large apartment complexes, which provides includes a pond for residents for
recreational opportunities like fishing, jogging and feeding waterfowl, while at the same time
quickly attracting muskrats, providing local trappers new sources for trapping opportunities
(North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014). Accompanying rapid real estate growth brings
construction of golf courses also creating excellent muskrat habitat, and an excellent supply of
animals for local trappers to harvest (North Carolina Trappers Association, 2014).
In the eastern half of North Carolina, beavers have become more a severe nuisance
over the past 20 years (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014). They have
flooded valuable commercial pine tree farms, impacted the endangered species Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) habitat, and severely impeded highway drainage ditches (North
Carolina Trapper’s Association, 2014).
In 1985, a Beaver Depredation Advisory Board, with representatives from: various
concern groups, State and federal government agencies, non-profit agencies, State Trapper’s
Association, and non-profit agencies was created to considered possible changes to the beaver
trapping regulations (North Carolina Trapper’s Association). Some people suggested: allowing
the beaver to be hunted as well as trapped, managing flooded tree farms as waterfowl
impoundments either privately or publicly (North Carolina Trapper’s Association, 2014). The
Board met only briefly before disbanding in early 1986 (North Carolina Trapper’s Association).

53. 53
Table 7 - North Carolina furbearer harvest for period 2002 - 2007
Source: (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2014)

54. 54
Wildlife managers have trapped several different species of furbearers (Table 8), then re-
located these furbearers into an area to assist in the restoration of endangered plants (Association
of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). The target furbearing animals trapped will decrease over
time, the ecological mutilation or predation, on the rare or endangered species (Fur Council of
Canada, 2014). The trapping activities may be carried out by a number of federal, state, or
provincial, wildlife biologists and animal control agents (Fur Institute of Canada, 2014). North
American Research has been funded jointly by Canadian, and the American Governments, with
additional assistance from the International Fur Trade Federation, various state and provincial
wildlife departments, and the Fur Institute of Canada (Fur Institute of Canada, 2014). Wildlife
agencies employ the research discoveries of trap studies to appraise, integrate new data into
trapping regulations, and trapper education programs (Fur Council of Canada, 2014).
Table 8 - Species trapped to aid in the restoration of rare species
Rare Species Species Trapped to Aid Restoration
Pink Lady Slipper Beaver
Pitcher Plant Beaver
Desert Tortoise Coyote
Sea Turtle Raccoon
Black-footed Ferret Coyote
(taken for disease monitoring)
Piping Plover Red Fox, Raccoon, Mink, Striped
Skunk
Source: (Fun Council of Canada, 2014)
Furbearers continue to demonstrate their 21st
economic values: (1). Beaver castors
and muskrat scent glands are highly prized in the cosmetic industry (Erickson & Sampson,
1978). (2). Mink fat oil is broken down, and used for waterproofing hiking boots and other types
of footwear (Burt, 1976). (3). Jobs exist in many areas such as manufacturing, retail sales, and

55. 55
support positions (Saga, furs, 2014). Many people have benefited economically from the use of
furs and other furbearer products (Fur Council of Canada, 2014).
While at the same time, countless people struggle with economic loss from destruction
or havoc caused by furbearers such as beaver and the muskrat (Batcheller, Decker, Hamilton &
Organ, 2000). Beavers have caused extensive damage to commercial tree farms, in North
Carolina (North Carolina Trapper’s Association). But in the process have created waterfowl
habitats, allowing some enterprising landowners to charge fees for hunting rights to flooded
areas (North Carolina Trapper’s Association). Muskrats can create havoc to impoundments
creating difficult situations with private landowners, particular golf courses (Dedah,
Kazmierczak & Keithly, 2010).
Furbearers serve have ecological values as predators and as prey which help keep
ecological environments in equilibrium (Deems & Pursley, 1983). When ecosystems become
unbalanced, existence of certain species is threatened, or endangered, furbearers assist in
maintaining a stable predator population through their own cyclic population cycles (Feldhamer,
Thompson & Chapman, 2003). Beaver, and to a minor extent, muskrats, alter habitat, often to the
benefit of many other wildlife species (Batcheller, Decker, Hamilton & Organ, 2000).
Furbearers do provide cultural value assets (Andelt, Phillips, Schmidt & Gill, 1999).
Trapping is a part of American cultural heritage (Coclanis, 2011). Its traditional skills, including
wise usage, conservation, and respect of natural resources are passed along in many families
from generation to generation (Brooks, Roberton & Bell, 2010). Some members of the public
retain a cultural heritage of consuming furbearer meat to directly sustain their families and pets
(Hanson, 1984). Subsistence lifestyle through trapping furbearers, and then selling the fur, and
animal products still exist today in many parts of the world (Hanson, 1984). For many native

56. 56
Canadians trapping is the only lifestyle they have ever known, and continue to raise their
families in the same traditions, that have been handed over countless generations (Coclanis,
2011).
Furbearers most importantly continuing are providing their biological values and
benefits (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Beavers are some of the best known
civil engineers in the natural resource world (Woodward, Hazel & Gaffney, 1985). Beavers have
been credited with improving wetland habitat particular vital waterfowl (North Carolina
Trapper’s Association, 2014).
Furbearers such as mink prefer hunting along sources that provide excellent quality
water, due to the main diet of the furbearers (Gehring & Swihart, 2004). Otters are excellent
indicators of the ecosystem (Gehring & Swihart, 2004). Mercury is commonly found in hair of
otters (Kimber & Kollias, 2000). Furbearers can provide society with a better understanding
environmental impacts caused by human intervention, such as effects of environmental
pollutants (Gehring & Swihart, 2004).
However, most people, no matter what their ethical or moral ideas, enjoy seeing furbearers
that provide aesthetic values (Gilbert, 1991). Most people enjoy all types of wildlife, species
including furbearers, provide wildlife stay at a comfortable distance, and do not become a
nuisance (Fraser, 2001). People seem enlightened, as they observe a beaver working on, and
repairing damage to their dam (Barrett, Proulx & Jotham, 1988).
Professional wildlife management are successfully restoring, preserving, and ensuring
the continuing viability of wild furbearer populations in North America today (Association of
Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014). Evidence has shown, some wildlife species are more valued
from a research viewpoint, than others partly, on their retail economic value or standing on world

57. 57
markets (Saga Furs, 2014). This evidence further shows a furbearer‘s retail economic value
usually determines funding, management, and protection habitats and ecosystems critical for
their survival (Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 2014).
Trapping industry supports better management of license fees, and sustainable
wildlife resources will be here for future generations. A stable, sustainable, growing trapping
industry will insure a steady increase of trapping licenses and fees. These funds will permit
wildlife conservation agencies the necessary funds to insure furbearer populations are stable, and
wise productive usage of wildlife resources. Wildlife managers, biologists, and policy makers
want to insure, that no further decline in any wildlife species is observed, or loss. The long term
goal is developing and maintaining healthy sustainable wildlife populations for various purposes.
In some cases, the losses of a particular species, or group of wildlife species would reduce some
specific avenues, and most certainly jobs, would be lost in an increasing demanding job market,
that many people today are struggling to find a jobs, and support their families. All wildlife
species provide economic and non-economic values for society at many levels. The current
generations want future generations to have the same economic opportunities to enjoy, and have
ecological balance populations of wildlife species. Wildlife species will continue contributes
many values to the global planet.
The trapping industry today is continuing providing essential benefits in reducing the
United States’ overall trade imbalance. The combination of high retail value of re-bounding
popularity of fur coats and export demands for American fur pelts increases the gross national
product (GNP), which stimulates and aids in economic growth. Increase in furbearer resources
allows for greater exports of raw furs and associated items like fur coats and hats. Manufacture
jobs are needed to produce fur clothing, contributes to economic output, pumps economic funds

58. 58
into communities, and creates income revenue funding for federal benefits like social security.
Jobs indirectly related to trapping in accounting, sales, and payrolls are to be included. Local
governments can collect higher tax revenue on good and services, fund current projects, and jobs
providing more tax revenue and economic growth. Society finds many ways of spending their
disposable incomes, fueling more economic development. Trapping opportunities affords
families more financial resources to send their dependents off to colleges and explore other
opportunities globally.
More research needs to be performed to determine a more accurate economic impact
of trapping overall. Some states publish a wealth of trapping data, while other agencies only
publish limited trapping related data, and then some wildlife publish no data at all. The fur
auction houses have access fur values and quantities of furs sold, but can be difficult to obtain,
and is not posted on main web pages. The trade imbalance should have specific line item to track
trade imbalance. There are many areas, or categories, within the trade imbalance, that the United
States is losing ground. Any area of stable economic growth, to replace these declining areas,
will assist in reducing American trade imbalance.
Some furbearing status may need to be re-classifying as to method of taking, either
hunting or trapping. In some States, a furbearer animal economic value is actually loss, because
it is considered a game animal, where game license fees cover other non-furbearing animals such
as rabbits and grouse. If the same furbearer is considered a furbearer, the license fee is higher,
but the resource will still be utilized.
Many non-profit organizations, such as the Soil & Water Conservation Society fund
scholarships, and grants for furbearer research. If these funds were particularly earmarked for
trapping, more quality research could be realized. Agriculture and wildlife management colleges

59. 59
need to consider offering specific degrees, both graduate and undergraduate specifically relating
to trapping and the industry. Local soil and water conservation boards, which work closely with
federal agencies like the Natural Resources Conservation Service – USDA, would have
opportunities to find resources in grants and scholarships, than State wildlife agencies. Another
possible, State wildlife agencies could earmark, a portion of license fees received, for creating
and developing grants and scholarships dedicated to trapping.
Most literature is out of date, and in some certain areas of concern, provides an
inaccurate economic current picture of today’s trapping industry. Current literature is more
dedicated to particular species and not all species as a whole. Society demographics and
encroachment into all types of wildlife habitats, and ecosystems needs updated to reflect new
values and opinions.
Good quality data is needed. This data can be translated into new literature, and spark
new ways of policy thinking. Research and development of new date cannot be achieved without
adequate funding. Licenses fees and other types of fees are the direct source. A continued stable,
growing trapping license fees increase, better classification of furbearing animals will insure
proper application of funding, and support current and future wildlife management work will
continue. All aspects either directly or indirectly need to considered and researched fully. The
future of furbearers, their overall sustainability, depends on what information is collected, and
how well it is utilized now and in the future.

60. 60
References
Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian. (2014). http://www.bia.gov/
Agencies, Association of Fish & Wildlife. (2014). http://www.fishwildlife.org/
Agustín Iriarte, J., & Jaksić, F. M. (1986). The fur trade in Chile: an overview of seventy-five
years of export data (1910–1984). Biological Conservation, 38(3), 243-253.
America, Fur Takers (FTA). (2014). http://www.furtakersofamerica.com
Andelt, W. F., Phillips, R. L., Schmidt, R. H., & Gill, R. B. (1999). Trapping furbearers: an
overview of the biological and social issues surrounding a public policy controversy. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 27(1), 53-64.
Andersen, K., Bernstien, D. T., Caret, R. L., & Romanczyk Jr, L. J. (1982). Chemical
constituents of the defensive secretion of the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Tetrahedron,
38(13), 1965-1970.
Armstrong, J. B., & Rossi, A. N. (2000). Status of avocational trapping based on the perspectives
of state furbearer biologists. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 825-832.
Association, National Trappers (NTA). (2014). http://www.nationaltrappers.com/
Association, North Carolina Trappers. (2014). http://nctrapper.org/
Auction, National American Fur (NAFA). (2014). http://www.nafa.ca/
Baker, T. L. (1987). Beaver to Buffalo Robes: Transition in the Fur Trade. Museum of the Fur
Trade Quarterly, 23, 1-8.
Barrett, M. W., Proulx, G., & Jotham, N. (1988). Wild fur industry under challenge: the
Canadian response. Trans. North American Wildland and Natural Resource Conference,
(Vol. 53, pp. 180-190).
Batcheller, G. R., Decker, T. A., Hamilton, D. A., & Organ, J. F. (2000). A vision for the future
of furbearer management in the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4), 833-840.

61. 61
Bateman, J. A. (2003). Trapping: a practical guide. Coch Books.
Boddicker, M. L. (1981). Profiles of American trappers and trapping. In Worldwide Furbearer
Conference Proceedings (Vol. 3, pp. 1919-1949).
Brooks, E. G., Roberton, S. I., & Bell, D. J. (2010). The conservation impact of commercial
wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam. Biological Conservation, 143(11), 2808-2814.
Bulte, E. H., & Damania, R. (2005). An economic assessment of wildlife farming and
conservation. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1222-1233.
Bureau, United States Census Bureau. (2014).
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=112930&search=2002
Burt, W. H. (1976). A field guide to the mammals: North America north of Mexico (Vol. 5).
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Calkins, P. H. (2000). Twenty‐three Centuries of Chinese Trade. Canadian Journal of
Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 48(4), 461-472.
Canada, Fur Council of. (2014). www.furcouncil.com
Canada, Fur Institute. (2014). Economic Impact Analysis of Stewardship Activities in Canada.
http://www.fur.ca/EC_stewardship_analysis.php
Carlos, A. M. (2011). Fur, Fortune, and Empire: The Epic History of the Fur Trade in America.
Journal of American History, 98(1), 182-182.
Carlos, A.M., & Hoffman, E. (1986). The North American Fur Trade: Bargaining to a Joint
Profit Maximum under Incomplete Information, 1804-1821. Journal of Economic History 46,
no. 4: 967-86.
Clayton, J. L. (1966). The Growth and Economic Significance of the American Fur Trade,
1790-1890. Minnesota History, 40, 214-219.

62. 62
Coclanis, P. A. (2011). Fur, Fortune, and Empire: The Epic History of the Fur Trade in
America–By Eric Jay Dolan. Historian, 73(3), 555-556.
Commission, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation. (2014). http://www.myfwc.com/
Commission, North Carolina Wildlife Resources. (2014). Trapping in North Carolina.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Trapping.aspx
Company, Hudson Bay. (2014). http://www.hbc.com/
Conservation, Missouri Department of. (2014). http://mdc.mo.gov/
Daigle, J. J. (1997). The sociocultural importance of fur trapping in six northeastern states.
Decker, T. A., & Batcheller, G. R. (1993). Furbearer management in transition: challenges for
the future. Northeast Wildlife, 50, 153-157.
Dedah, C., Kazmierczak Jr, R. F., & Keithly Jr, W. R. (2010). The role of bounties and human
behavior on Louisiana nutria harvests. Journal of Agricultural & Applied Economics,
42(1), 133 – 142.
Deems, E. F., & Pursley, D. (1983). North American furbearers: a contemporary reference.
International Association of Fish & Wildlife.
Department, Vermont Fish & Wildlife. (2014). http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/
Dunaway, W. A. (1994). The Southern Fur Trade and the Incorporation of Southern Appalachia
Into the World-Economy, 1690-1763. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 215-242.
Encyclopedia, Canada The. (2014). http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/fur-trapping/
Erickson, D. W., & Sampson, F. W. (1978). Impact of market dynamics on Missouri’s furbearer
harvest system. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the Southeast Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies (Vol. 32, pp. 17-29).

63. 63
Fan, L. S. (1973). The Economy and Foreign Trade of China. Law and Contemporary Problems,
249-259.
Federation, International Fur Trade. (2014). http://www.iftf.com
Feldhamer, G. A., Thompson, B. C., & Chapman, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Wild mammals of North
America: biology, management, and conservation. JHU Press.
Fichter, E. (1978). Fur investigations. Nebraska Quarterly Progress Report, Jan, 28-33.
Fontenoy, P. E. (1997). Ginseng, Otter Skins, and Sandalwood: The Conundrum of the China
Trade. Northern Mariner, 7, 1-16.
Fraser, D. (2001). Farm animal production: changing agriculture in a changing culture. Journal
Of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 4(3), 175-190.
Furs, Saga. (2014). http://www.sagafurs.com/en/
Fur, Truth About. (2014). North American Fur Trade. http://www.truthaboutfur.com/en/home
Game, Alaska Department of Fish. (2014).
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=trapping.main
Game, Idaho Fish &. (2014). http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/licenses/fees/
Gehring, T. M., & Swihart, R. K. (2004). Home range and movements of long-tailed weasels in a
landscape fragmented by agriculture. Journal of Mammalogy, 85(1), 79-86.
Gentile, J. R. (1987). The evolution of anti-trapping sentiment in the United States: a review and
commentary. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15(4), 490-503.
Gese, E. M., & Grothe, S. (1995). Analysis of coyote predation on deer and elk during winter in
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. American Midland Naturalist, 36-43.
Gilbert, F. F. (1991). Trapping—an animal rights issue or a legitimate wildlife management
technique—the move to international standards. Transactions of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resource Conference, (Vol. 56, pp. 400-408).

64. 64
Gill, J. D. (Ed.). (1990). Traps, trapping, and furbearer management: a review. Wildlife Society.
Glass, R. J., Siemer, W. F., Brown, T. L., Batcheller, G. L., & DiStefano, J. J. (1992). Trappers
in New York and Vermont: comparisons of social characteristics and motivations. Notes.
Guangcai, S. (2010). Present Status of Mink Fur Trade of China and Russia and its Improvement
[J]. Chinese Journal of Wildlife, 5, 019.
Haeger, J. D. (1988). Business Strategy and Practice in the Early Republic: John Jacob Astor and
the American Fur Trade. The Western Historical Quarterly, 183-202.
Hanson, C. (1987). Fur Trade Activities in the Fort Laramie Region: 1834 - 1849. Journal of the
West, 26(4), 8-13.
Hanson, J. A. (1984). A Forgotten Fur Trade Trail. Nebraska History, 68, 2-9.
Harte, N. B. (1991). The economics of clothing in the late seventeenth century. Textile History,
22(2), 277-296.
Howell, R. G. (1982). The urban coyote problem in Los Angeles County. In Proceedings of the
Tenth Vertebrate Pest Conference (1982) (p. 22).
Hsieh-Yi, Y. C., Fu, Y., Rissi, M., & Maas, B. (2014). Fun Fur?
Hu, H. M., & Wang, K. Y. (2009). The Present Situation and Prospect of China Fur Wares in
International Trade [J]. Leather Science and Engineering, 5, 019.
Hubert, G. F. (1982). History of Midwestern furbearer management and a look to the future. In
Midwest furbearer management symposium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.). North Central Section,
Central Mountains and Plains Section, and Kansas Chapter, The Wildlife Society,
(pp. 175-191).
Innis, H. A. (1999). The fur trade in Canada: An introduction to Canadian economic history.
University of Toronto Press.

65. 65
Jacobson, C. A., & Decker, D. J. (2006). Ensuring the future of state wildlife management:
Understanding challenges for institutional change. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(2), 531-536.
Johnson, R. E., Male, C. B., Linhart, S. B., & Engeman, R. M. (1986). Electronic measurement
of closure speed for steel foothold traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 223-225.
Jojola, S. M., Witmer, G., & Nolte, D. (2006). Managing invasive nutria: The role of olfactory
cues. In Proceedings-Vertebrate Pest Conference, (Vol. 2006).
Jones, D. M., & Rodriguez, S. H. (2003). Restricting the Use of Animal Traps in the United
States: An Overview of Laws and Strategy. Animal Law, 9, 135.
Kardulias, P. N. (1990). Fur production as a specialized activity in a world system: Indians in the
North American fur trade. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 14(1), 25-60.
Kay, J. (1984). Native Americans in the fur trade and wildlife depletion. Environmental Review:
Ethnohistory, 265-287.
Kiessling, G., Balekjian, C., & Oehmichen, A. (2009). What credit crunch & quest; More luxury
for new money: European rising stars & established markets. Journal of Retail & Leisure
Property, 8(1), 3-23.
Kimber, K. R., & Kollias, G. V. (2000). Infectious and parasitic diseases and contaminant-
related problems of North American river otters (Lontra canadensis): a review. Journal of Zoo
and Wildlife Medicine, 31(4), 452-472.
Klein, J. L., Tremblay, D. G., Fontan, J. M., & Guay, N. (2007). The uniqueness of the Montreal
fur industry in an apparel sector adrift: the role of proximity. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7(2), 298-319.
Knowlton, F. F., Gese, E. M., & Jaeger, M. M. (1999). Coyote depredation control: an interface
between biology and management. Journal of Range Management, 398-412.
Kolokolnikov, A. (2013). International Fur Trade: Trends, Challenges, Prospects.

66. 66
Leopold, A. (1943). Wildlife in American culture. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 1-6.
Li, Q. M., LV, Z. C., & Wang, C. Y. (2008). Study on the Fur Trade Market in Russia and the
Sino-Russia Trade Policy in Hebei, PR China [J]. Journal of Shijiazhuang University of
Economics, 1, 010.
Linhart, S. B. (1985). Furbearer management and the steel foothold trap.
Linscombe, G. R. (1995). U.S. fur harvest and fur value: statistics by state and region.
International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.
Liu, W., Pannell, C. W., & Liu, H. (2009). The global economic crisis and China's foreign trade.
Eurasian Geography and Economics, 50(5), 497-512.
Manfredo, M. J., Pierce, C. L., Fulton, D., Pate, J., & Gill, B. R. (1999). Public acceptance of
Wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 499-508.
McManus, J. C. (1972). An economic analysis of Indian behavior in the North American fur
trade. The Journal of Economic History, 32(01), 36-53.
Muth, R. M., Zwick, R. R., Mather, M. E., Organ, J. F., Daigle, J. J., & Jonker, S. A. (2006).
Unnecessary source of pain and suffering or necessary management tool: Attitudes of
conservation professionals toward outlawing leghold traps. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(3),
706-715.
Muth, R. M., Daigle, J. J., Zwick, R. R., & Giass, R. J. (1996). Trappers and trapping in
advanced industrial society: Economic and socio cultural values of furbearer utilization in the
Northeastern United States. Sociological Spectrum, 16(4), 421-436.
Net, E. H. (2009). Economic history of the North American fur trade, 1670 to 1870.
Nie, M. (2004). State wildlife policy and management: The scope and bias of political conflict.
Public Administration Review, 64(2), 221-233.

67. 67
Nollkaemper, A. (1996). Legality of Moral Crusades Disguised in Trade Laws: An Analysis of
the EC Ban on Furs from Animals Taken by Leghold Traps. Journal Environmental Law, 8,
237.
Oglesby, R. E. (1967). The Fur Trade as Business. The Frontier Re-Examined, 111-127.
Organ, J. F., Decker, T., DiStefano, J., Elowe, K., Rego, P., & Mirick, P. G. (1996). Trapping
and furbearer management: Perspectives from the Northeast. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service,
Hadley, Massachusetts.
Payne, N. F. (1980). Furbearer management and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 8(4),
345-348.
Peck, J. H., & Heidt, G. A. (1985). A model to predict Arkansas gray fox fur harvests. In
Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings (Vol. 39, pp. 92-94).
Pomeranz, K. (1999). Fur and Fashion in the Far East. World Trade, 12(11), 108.
Prasad, E. (Ed.). (2004). China's growth and integration into the world economy: Prospects and
Challenge, (Vol. 232). International Monetary Fund.
Ray, A. J. (1990). The Canadian fur trade in the industrial age. University of Toronto Press.
Resources, Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2014). http://fw.ky.gov
Resources, Iowa Department of Natural. (2014). Hunting, Trapping & Fur Harvesting.
http://www.iowadnr.gov/Hunting/TrappingFurHarvesting.aspx
Resources, Michigan Department of Natural. (2014). Hunting and Trapping.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/
Rupprecht, C. E., Hanlon, C. A., & Slate, D. (2003). Oral vaccination of wildlife against rabies:
opportunities and challenges in prevention and control. Developments in biologicals, 119,
173-184.
Sanford, M. (2005). Take a Kid Fishing Day. South Carolina State Documents Depository.

68. 68
Schipper, S. S. (1987). Garment manufacturing. Wild furbearer management and conservation in
North America. Ontario Trappers Association, Ontario, Canada, 878-888.
Schmidt, R. H. (1990). Why do we debate animal rights?. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 18(4), 459.
Schulzinger, R. (1986). Foreign Affairs and Expansion. American Frontier and Western Issues:
A Historiographical Review, 218.
Scott, M. E. (1988). The impact of infection and disease on animal populations: implications for
conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 2(1), 40-56.
Serfass, T. L., Brooks, R. P., Swimley, T. J., Rymon, L. M., & Hayden, A. H. (1996).
Considerations for capturing, handling, and translocating river otters. Wildlife Society
Bulletin, 25-31.
Shuhua, Z. (2005). Situation of China fur industry. China Leather, 11, 013.
Siemer, W. F., Batcheller, G. R., Glass, R. J., & Brown, T. L. (1994). Characteristics of trappers
and trapping participation in New York. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 100-111.
Skov, L. (2005). The return of the fur coat: a commodity chain perspective. Current Sociology,
53(1), 9-32.
Smith, L. M., Brisbin, I. L., & White, G. C. (1984). An evaluation of total trap line captures as
estimates of furbearer abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management, 1452-1455.
Smith, W. (1973). The Fur Trade and the Frontier: A Study of an Inter-Cultural Alliance.
Anthropologica, 21-35.
Society, Soil & Water Conservation (SWCS). (2014). http://www.swcs.org/
Stabler, J. C., Tolley, G., & Howe, E. C. (1990). Fur trappers in the Northwest Territories: An
econometric analysis of the factors influencing participation. Arctic, 43(1), 1-8.
Stains, H. J. (1979). Primeness in North American furbearers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 120-124.

69. 69
Survey, United States Geological. (2014). Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Fur
Management. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/furtake/manage.htm
Swagerty, W. R. (1990). The Upper Missouri Outfit: The Men and the Fur Trade in
the 1830s.”. In Fort Union Trade Symposium Proceedings September 13-15 (pp. 25-42).
Thomas, C., & Weber, M. (1999). New values and international organizations: Balancing trade
and environment in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Global Trade and Global
Social Issues. London and New York: Routledge, 133-150.
Tieqiu, H. (2007). The Fur Trade and Social Change in Modern Northwest China [J]. Modern
Chinese History Studies, 4, 006.
Todd, A. R. (1981). Ecological arguments for fur-trapping in boreal wilderness regions. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 9.
Tourism, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and. (2014). Hunting and Trapping Licenses.
http://kdwpt.state.ks.us/Hunting/Furharvesting
Tracy, W. A. (1979). A Reconsideration of the Archaeological Significance of the Role of the
Middleman in the Fur Trade. American Antiquity, 594-595.
Usher, P. J. (1970). Bankslanders: Economy and ecology of a frontier trapping community.
Utley, R. M. (2004). After Lewis and Clark: Mountain Men and the Paths to the Pacific.
University of Nebraska Press.
Wang, K. (1973). Foreign Trade Policy and Apparatus of the People's Republic of China. Law
and Contemporary Problems, 38(2), 182-200.
Westhoff, P., Fabiosa, J., Beghin, J., & Meyers, W. (2004). Challenges in modeling the effects of
trade agreements on the agricultural sector. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,
36(2), 383-393.
Wildlife, Maine Department of Inland and Fisheries. (2014). http://www.maine.gov/ifw/

70. 70
Wildlife, Texas Parks and. (2014). http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/licenses/online_sales/
White, L. H., & Gowans, F. R. (1993). Traders to Trappers: Andrew Henry and the Rocky
Mountain Fur Trade. Montana: The Magazine of Western History, 58-65.
White, R. (1988). Fur trade to free trade: putting the Canada-US trade agreement in historical
perspective. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Wike, J. (1958). Problems in Fur Trade Analysis: The Northwest Coast. American
Anthropologist, 60(6), 1086-1101.
Winterhalder, B. P. (1980). Canadian fur bearer cycles and Cree-Ojibwa hunting and trapping
practices. American Naturalist, 870-879.
Witthoft, J. (1966). Archaeology as a key to the colonial fur trade. Minnesota History, 40(4),
203-209.
Wolfe, M. L., & Chapman, J. A. (1987). Principles of furbearer management. Wild furbearer
conservation and management in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 101-112.
Wolfe, R. J. (1991). Trapping in Alaska communities with mixed, subsistence-cash economies.
Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Woodward, D. K., Hazel, R. B., & Gaffney, B. P. (1985). Economic and environmental impacts
of beavers in North Carolina.
Yang, X. T., Zhang, W., & ZHou, X. H. (2011). The Fur Market Cycles, Price Forecast and
Analysis. Journal of Economic Animal, 2, 004.
Yan-juan, D. (2010). Analysis about Luxury Consumption of Clothing in China. Economic
Research Guide, 7, 078.