Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Social Surveies: New France Part 1 Question # 5: Defend or rebut the statement: & # 8220 ; Trapping should be illegal-then and now & # 8221 ; Trapping is a really of import issue, which is connected to many other larger issues. For case, pin downing prevarications at the bosom of the First Nation & # 8217 ; s distinguishable society issue. Before I talk about the present, nevertheless, I would wish to discourse whether pin downing should hold been illegal when Canada was first being settled in the 17th and 18th centuries. When the first adventurers came to the new universe, it was regarded as a immense slab of worthless stone standing between Europe and the wealths of the Orient. The lone ground these adventurers even explored this continent was the hope of happening the North-West transition, a path to the Orient. Fortunately, while seeking for this North-West transition, some of these adventurers stumbled onto a practical magnet for colony: The Fur Trade. When people heard how furs of all sorts could be obtained so easy and sold for so much, the thought of non settling in the new universe was pathetic. Suddenly colonists came to this & # 8220 ; slab of worthless stone & # 8221 ; and tried to put up lasting life at that place. Even after a few failed efforts the draw of the fur trade was responsible for the colony we call New France. After the first stairss toward a lasting settlement in the new universe were made, the following stairss came in springs and bounds. The Gallic authorities was directing everyone they could to settle in New France. Courieurs de Bois, began coming to the settlement to pin down pelts and sell them back in France. France granted land to hapless people that were willing to put on the line the great ocean trip. The settlement flourished, and grew. It was the fur trade that was largely responsible for this settlement. However, some think that by this point the settlement was big plenty to outlaw fur caparison and still stay a profitable settlement for France. However, there is one major ground that fur trading should hold been allowed: Relationss with the Indians. Relations with the Indians were rickety, at best. Some Indians befriended the Gallic, and some befriended the English. Some merely gave their pelt to the highest bidder. The relationship with the Indians was more than merely a trade understanding. The wars of the Indians were the wars of the Gallic. Now, conceive of what would go on if one twenty-four hours, an Indian came to a Frenchman and offered him a fur. The Frenchman tells the Indian that non onl

y will he not buy it, but no Frenchman in New France will. Not only that, trapping furs in the forests belonging to the French was not allowed. The relationships with the Indians which had taken so long to establish would be shattered in days. The Indians would probably recognize the French as their enemies. Now not only the enemies of the Indian “friends” of the French would attack them, but also their “friends”. Settlers would again become afraid to come to New France because of the fierce Indian attacks. The French colony in New France would cease to exist. Therefore, I think trapping should have been legal then. Now that I have talked about fur trapping then, I’ll talk about it now. Unfortunately, it is much more complicated now. Animal rights activists have told us that it is wrong to kill an animal for its fur. I strongly agree with this opinion, especially since man-made fur is so accessible. Unfortunately, there are people who feel they deserve real fur if they can pay for it. Although I disagree with them, you cannot just deny them the fur, because one way or another they will arrange to get it. Even so, trapping (for fur) should be illegal. If you want real fur, you should not kill wild animals. You should go to a farm where animals are raised for their fur. The problem of people wanting real fur is small compared to other problems for and against the fur trade. For instance, if we illegalize trapping, the First Nation’s way of life would be totally disrupted. Not letting the First Nation trap is like taking away a large profession from us, for instance law. What would all the lawyers do if suddenly practising law was illegal? The First Nations, I believe, should be allowed to continue trapping as long as it is under limits. However, I believe that, after all, their ancestors had such a successful relationship with the land that trapping within limits should not be a problem. Another problem that would arise if trapping is illegalized is that it is said that too many predators (wolves, etc.) would roam the forests and be dangerous to farms with livestock on them. It is said that trapping keeps the populations of these predators low, so they will not pose as much of a threat to farms. In conclusion, I feel that trapping today should be legal within strict limits that allow for the way of life of the native peoples and for the balance of nature, but do not permit gratuitous killing of animals.