An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
A RECENT LAWSUIT resulting from the death of a dog in an animal trap has raised the issue of mandatory warning signs where the traps are set.
The trap named in the lawsuit is one that was designed to be a more humane trap than the old leghold variety still in common use on traplines across the country.
But is there any such thing as a humane animal killing trap? It can be argued that any trap designed to snare or snap onto a furbearing animal is going to cause pain and suffering.
It can also be argued, of course, that the trapping of furbearing animals is absolutely necessary in some instances, such as when beaver interfere with man-made dams, or when predators endanger livestock.
Methodology is always an issue no matter what the purpose, but the commercial fur trade is hard to defend under any circumstances.
That industry is based on the deaths of millions of animals just so people can wear them as fashionable clothing.
We’re a contradictory bunch, we humans. We love our pets, we fight to protect wolves and bears and other wildlife, but we willingly slaughter various creatures not because we need to but because of our own vanity.
Really, do we need to wear dead animals? Some will say our very economy began with the fur trade and there’s much truth in that. According to the Fur Institute of Canada, the fur trade — including fur farms — contributes almost $1 billion a year to the Canadian economy.
That may be, but times change and I can’t help but think we’d be just fine if we stopped killing animals for their pelts. And it’s a certainty the animals would be much better off.
I’m Mel Rothenburger, the Armchair Mayor.
Mel Rothenburger is a former mayor of Kamloops and newspaper editor. He publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a director on the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.