See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268687210

Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada

Chapter · January 1987

CITATIONS READS
9 1,239

4 authors, including:

Brian G. Slough

60 PUBLICATIONS   1,042 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ecology and conservation of bats in the boreal forest View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian G. Slough on 24 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1062

67
WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT
IN WESTERN AND NORTHERN CANADA
BRIAN G. SLOUGH, Yukon Department of Renewable Resources, Box 2703, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory YlA 2C6
R. HARVEY JESSUP, Yukon Department of Renewable Resources, Box 2703, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory Y1A 2C6
D. IAN MCKAY, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Box 24, 1495 St. James Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3H 0W9
A. BRUCE STEPHENSON, Northwest Territories Department of Renewable Resources, Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories X1A 2L9

Western and northern Canada is a region that comprises four voyage resulted in the formation of the Hudson’s Bay Company,
provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan), which was granted sole trading rights to all territories drained by
the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Territory (Fig. 1). The rivers flowing into Hudson Bay. The company’s first permanent
fur trade in this region began with the British trading companies trading post in this region was York Factory, built in 1684 at the
that operated around Hudson Bay in the 17th century, and it took mouth of the Hayes River in present-day Manitoba.
two centuries to expand throughout this vast region. Today the From York Factory, the early Hudson’s Bay Company
region remains a major fur producer, and trapping survives as a explorers pushed inland in the late 1700s and constructed several
lifestyle and an economic activity. trading posts throughout the central and northern areas of the
The fur trade has played a major role in the development of Prairie provinces. The wealth of furs gained from the enormous
western and northern Canada since the first shipload of furs territory explored by the Hudson’s Bay Company encouraged
arrived in London from Hudson Bay in 1669. The furs from this other trading companies to pursue the wild fur resource. The
North West Company, founded in 1779, established a trading
network that extended from Montreal to central and southern
British Columbia (New Caledonia) by the early l9th century. The
60
intense rivalry between these two companies, which lasted until
their amalgamation in 1821, decimated beaver (Castor canadensis)
populations in Canada (Innis 1956).
As Rupert’s Land became depleted of furs in the early l9th
century, the Hudson’s Bay Company sought new fur-producing
areas to the north and west, and by the 1830s it was trading in
northern Alberta, northern British Columbia, and the Northwest
50 Territories, and it had expanded into the Yukon by the 1840s.
Throughout the remainder of the l9th century and the early
part of the 20th century, the rapid advancement of European
settlers facilitated by the construction of railroads was responsible
for agricultural practices spreading through the prairies and
40 parkland areas and replacing the fur trade as the region’s
dominant industry. This influx of settlers also resulted in the
displacement of Indian peoples from their traditional hunting areas.
Land concessions (Treaties 1–7) with the federal government
30 extinguished all Indian claims in the grassland, parkland, and
bordering woodlands, and had important consequences for the
km
future of the fur trade (Ray 1974).
0
0 400 800
400 800 In the northern prairies, mineral exploration, the develop-
miles
ment of the mining and forest industries, and the construction of
120 100 80 the Hudson Bay Railway to Churchill brought many people into
the North (Buckley 1962). Many workers in these industries
turned to trapping in their spare time, leading to heavy trapping
Fig. 1. Location of western and northern Canada region in North America. The
region comprises an area of 6.8 million km2 (2.6 million miles2) and contains a pressure; this, combined with the poor management practices
human population of 7.4 million. associated with the absence of tenure, endangered many species.
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1063

Additionally, by the late 18th and early l9th centuries, over- Table 1. Status of furbearer populations in western and northern Canada, 1987.
exploitation of coastal sea otter (Enhydra lutris) populations led the
Statusa
Russians, Canadians, and Americans to search for valuable
British Northwest Saskat-
inland furbearers. The initial trading was done with the Tlingit Species Columbia Yukon Territories Alberta chewan Manitoba
Indians (of the Alaska panhandle), with martens (Martes americana),
red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) the Red squirrel 1 1 1 1 1 1
preferred species. This encouraged the coastal Indians to use their Beaver 1 2 2 1 1 1
existing system of trade with the interior Indians (Athapascans) Muskrat 3 3 2 3 3 3
and to act as middlemen. In 1839 the Russians granted the Coyote 1 2 2 1 2 2
Hudson’s Bay Company a charter for the exclusive trading rights Gray wolf 2 1 1 2 2 2
Red fox 2 2 2 3 1 2
to the Alaska panhandle. Company traders began to move into
Arctic fox 5 2 1 5 4 2
the Yukon in the mid-1800s in an effort to maximize the number
Raccoon 1 5 5 4 1 2
of pelts taken, because there was a physical limit to the amount
Fisher 2 4 4 2–3 2 2
of fur that the middlemen could carry. By 1895 many trappers Marten 2 1 1 2 1 2
were trading directly at posts rather than through Tlingit Weaselsb 2 2 2 2 2 2
intermediaries. Wolverine 2 1 1 4 4 4
The Klondike Gold Rush of 1898 also had considerable imme- Badger 3 5 5 3 2 3
diate and long-term impacts on the fur industry in the Yukon. In Skunksc 1 5 4 1 1 1
the years immediately following the gold rush, tremendous Mink 1 2 2 3 2 2
pressure was placed on the fur resource as would-be miners turned River otter 2 2 2 3 2 2
to trapping (McCandless 1977). In addition, fur prices increased Sea otter 4 5 5 5 5 5
dramatically after the First World War. Recognizing the potential Bobcat 3 5 5 3 3 4
danger to the resource, the Yukon Territorial Council passed a Lynx 3 3 3 3 3 3
game ordinance in 1920 that imposed regulated seasons and
a 1 = Abundant, 2 = Adequate, 3 = Low, 4 = Rare, 5 = Not present.
season closures for certain species. In 1937 a licensing system was b Includes long-tailed weasels, short-tailed weasels, and least weasels.
brought in for fur trappers. c Includes striped skunks and spotted skunks.

In 1909 a Hudson’s Bay Company post was established at

Wolsten Holme in the Eastern Arctic, and 217 trading posts operated
at 139 locations in the Northwest Territories between 1925 and
1929. The Great Depression and declining fur prices during the
late 1930s caused many small trading companies to go out of
business, and most sold their assets to the Hudson’s Bay
Company. Increasing shortages of fur and game in some districts
led to further government restrictions on hunting and trapping.
Until the mid-1940s in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon,
the majority of trappers were native Indians who trapped on
traditional family grounds. However, after the Second World War,
many veterans took up trapping, which resulted in increasing
pressure on the fur resource and in many disputes among
trappers.
THE HARVEST AND THE TRAPPER
Prairie Provinces
Trappers in the three Prairie provinces (Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan) harvested an average of $15 million per year in wild
fur from 1976 to 1986. This constituted approximately 32.5% of
the annual Canadian wild fur production and contributed signif-
icantly to the economy of many prairie residents who depend,
wholly or partially, on the fur resource for earned income.
Twenty species of furbearers are harvested in the Prairie
provinces; the current status of each species is shown in Table 1.
The raccoon (Procyon lotor) and arctic fox are harvested in Manitoba
and Saskatchewan only. The beaver, muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
and, in Alberta, the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) have
traditionally been considered the “bread and butter” species by
trappers because they are ubiquitous and populations are
currently stable. Pelt prices for these three species have had little
bearing on harvest. However, the market demand for long-haired
furs that began in the early 1970s resulted in a dramatic increase
in the value of lynx (Felis lynx), bobcat (F. rufus), coyote (Canis
latrans), and fox pelts.
Pursuit of furbearers for income is a seasonal and traditional
activity, and the economic importance of trapping to prairie
residents increases northward, where there is less opportunity for
other employment. Earnings may vary considerably according to
the availability of furbearers, pelt price, weather conditions, and
trapper skill and motivation (Todd and Boggess 1987). The actual
average annual income of approximately $1,000 per trapper may
appear low, but some trappers can earn more than $10,000 in a
year with favorable trapping conditions and large furbearer popu-
lations. In the Prairie provinces the greatest use of the fur industry
for income is by people of native ancestry: the Treaty Indian,
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
nonstatus Indian, and Métis. These groups occupy more than
two-thirds of all registered traplines in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, and in Alberta they constitute about half the
number of registered trappers (Meredith and Todd 1979).
The number of trapping licences sold and the fees in each
jurisdiction for the 1985–86 fur year are shown in Table 2.
Approximately 16,000 licences have been sold in Manitoba in
recent years; of these, about 2,500 (15%) were issued for the
registered trapline districts. The remaining 13,500 licences are
open-area licences for the southern agricultural area. Of the 2,500
registered trapline permits sold, 1,500 (66%) are issued to Treaty
Indians. Nonstatus Indians, Métis, and non-Indian trappers
constitute the remainder of this group. Of open-area licences in
1984–85, only 700 (5%) were held by Treaty Indians. In the
Saskatchewan Fur Conservation Block, which occupies about 50%
of the province’s land area, approximately 3,000 licenses are sold
annually (50% to Treaty Indians, 33% to Métis, 17% to other
trappers). Information was not available for the 14,000 southern-
area licenses sold (Runge and Sundu 1986). The number of
trapping licenses sold annually in Alberta has remained at
approximately 7,000–8,000 in recent years. Of this total, nearly
3,000 are issued for registered traplines and the rest are sold to
residents who trap outside the registered trapline area. Of these,
24% are Treaty Indian trappers, 4% are nonstatus Indians, 23%
are Métis, and 49% are of other ancestry. The socioeconomic
characteristics of registered trappers in Alberta were examined by
Meredith and Todd (1979) and Todd (1981).
British Columbia and the Territories
Twenty-two species of furbearers occur in British Columbia
(B.C.), the Northwest Territories (N.W.T.), and the Yukon Territory
(Table 1). Two of these, the badger (Taxidea taxus) and sea otter
(both B.C. only), are protected from all forms of harvest. The
remaining 20 species are trapped, and several are also hunted.
Several furbearers are the mainstay of trapping in the region: the
red squirrel, beaver, muskrat, coyote, gray wolf (Canis lupus), red
fox, marten, short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea), least weasel
(M. nivalis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), mink (M. vison), river otter (Lutra
canadensis), and lynx (Fig. 2). Raccoons, skunks (Mephitis mephitis
and Spilogale gracilis), bobcats, long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata),
and fishers (Matres pennanti) are found only in British Columbia
(although a few fishers are caught in the Northwest Territories
and Yukon), and arctic foxes occur only in the territories.
Most species are trapped almost exclusively for sale on the fur
market. Furs used by the native handicraft and garment industries,
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1064 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson

Table 2. Trapping licences and fees in western and northern Canada for the 1985–86 season.

Licence Fee
Registration Registered Registration
of a trapper Resident of a group
Jurisdiction trapping area (N) (N) Indian Métis trapping area Comments

Manitoba N/A $10/year $5/year Free N/A $10 Licence fee included in area registration
(2,970) (12,351)a fee. Free Indian licence for trapping on
reserve land in an open area only.
Saskatchewan N/A $10/year $10/year $10 $10 N/A Formal registration not adopted. Licence
(2,968) (13,661) fee includes registration.
Alberta $10/year N/A $10 $10 $10 N/A No licence fee for Indians and Métis trapping
(2,951) (3,973) on reserves or colony land. Licence fee
included with registration.
British Columbia $13/year N/A N/A $13 N/A $13/year/ $3 of licence fee contributed to Habitat
(4,145) member Conservation Fund. Native people do not
require a licence. Licence fee included in
registration.
Yukon $20/year $5/year N/A $5 N/A $100/5 years Native peoples in group areas, and senior
(763) citizens, are issued a licence free.
Northwest $10/year $10/5 years N/A ——— Free ———- $5/5 years Trappers must have a General Hunting
Territories (28) (N = 20,000) Licence or a special licence to trap. Not all
GHL holders (N = 20,000) trap, although an
estimated 4,000–5,000 do.
a
Total includes free licences (does not apply to registered trapline districts).

such as wolf and wolverine pelts, are initially handled by the
major auction houses. Home tanning is also common. The meat
of a few species, including the beaver, muskrat, red squirrel, and
lynx, are consumed by trappers or fed to their dogs. Their
importance as a protein source is more limited today than it has
been historically, although it still may be locally significant.
The value of the fur harvest to the northern (B.C./N.W.T.–
Yukon) trapper during the past 10 trapping seasons (1976–77 to
1985–86) has ranged from $5 million to $11 million annually. The
important economic species are the lynx, marten, and beaver,
with the muskrat, coyote, and mink being secondary. Most of the
Fig. 2. Harvey Jessup holding a livetrapped marten. The marten harvest is an
important component of the annual harvest in the region. (Photo: A. Grinde.)
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
beaver, coyote, and mink harvests occur in British Columbia.
Northwestern Canada (B.C./N.W.T.–Yukon) is the country’s
primary producer of wolverine pelts.
Licence types, numbers issued, and fee schedules are shown
in Table 2. In British Columbia and the Yukon Territory, two-
thirds of the trappers are of native ancestry; in the Northwest
Territories more than 90% of the licensed trappers are aboriginals.
To conclude, populations of furbearers in western and
northern Canada are being harvested by a system that encourages
management participation by the trapper.
ADMINISTRATION
Responsibility for the administration of the wild fur industry in
western and northern Canada is at similar levels in each juris-
diction but differs significantly in the number of staff working in
the area of fur management.
In the Yukon, fur management decisions are made from the
head office in Whitehorse. There is a furbearer biologist respon-
sible for research and management programs, and a fur manager
responsible for harvest management, trapper education, and fur
harvest enhancement programs. District field offices (eight in
number, staffed by conservation officers) are responsible for the
administration of registered traplines. Although management
decisions are made in Whitehorse, the district field staff can
influence the development of regulations.
The administration of the fur industry in the Northwest
Territories is carried out by the Department of Renewable
Resources, Field Services Division. A small headquarters contingent
in Yellowknife coordinates the activities of the field staff, who are
located in most communities in the North. The headquarters
staff provide advice, basic programs, and resource material for
fur management projects and trapper incentive and training
programs. Many of the field officers are native northerners who
hold a diploma from a 2-year Renewable Resources Technology
course. Each of the five administrative regions has a wildlife
biologist to oversee the research and management programs.
In British Columbia the regional managers (biologists from
eight regional headquarters) are responsible for implementing the
fur program. Regional staff (including conservation officers)
administer traplines, conduct field research, and recommend
regulation changes. A fur management specialist, located in
Victoria, is responsible for coordinating the provincial fur
program and reports directly to the Director of Fish and Wildlife.
Manitoba is the only Prairie province that maintains a section
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1065
solely responsible for all furbearer management activities. There
the Fur Unit is responsible for the administration of fur activities
province-wide. In 1975 the importance of the $5-million fur
industry to many Manitobans, especially those of native ancestry,
brought about the reestablishment of a significant fur management
staff similar to that of 1925. The fur program is administered
by a full-time program head and a clerk, and four full-time fur
managers are located in regional centers. These staff are
responsible for all policies, seasons, and regulations, and delivery
of federal-provincial cost-shared programs related to furbearer
management. To establish and maintain credibility with the
native people, the province annually hires 14 trapline officers for
6–8 months. These individuals, located in northern communities,
are of native ancestry and communicate with the trappers in
their native languages. They coordinate all trapper activities in
their trapline areas, issue licences, maintain local harvest records,
investigate trapper or resource problems, and act as organizers
and translators at community meetings. Trapline officers have
become an important part of Manitoba’s fur administration.
Fur administration in Saskatchewan is within the Wildlife
Branch, Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture. The Fur
Division is headquartered at Prince Albert. Direct staff include
an administrator–biologist, a statistics clerk, and a secretary.
Trapper education instructors are employed during the winter.
Field conservation officers are responsible for policy implemen-
tation and enforcement.
Alberta’s fur management activities are coordinated by a
provincial furbearer biologist responsible for developing and imple-
menting fur policies affecting resource users, the trading of raw
furs, the setting of seasons, and for conducting research activities
on specific problems. Regional offices of the Fish and Wildlife
Division carry out the field responsibilities of fur management
programs, including local administration and enforcement of
seasons and regulations, in conjunction with other resource-
related duties. A full-time clerk at head office maintains annual
harvest data and provides other office-support requirements.
Provincial trapper education activities and other trapper services
are carried out by one full-time coordinator. Trapper education
courses are operated in conjunction with the Alberta Vocational
Centre in Lac La Biche and are conducted by Alberta trappers
who are certified professional instructors.
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
Legislative Authority
Under the Canadian Constitution the mandate to manage wild-
life rests with the provincial and territorial governments. In each
jurisdiction, the Wildlife Act (or its equivalent) and Trapping
Regulations (called Commercial Activity Regulations in B.C.)
provide the authority to legislate and enforce laws pertaining to
furbearer management. The Wildlife Act provides the general
framework and direction for separate regulation sections such as
trapping regulations and fur management units (where
applicable). Legislation allows for annual revision of regulations
by order-in-council. Changes to the Wildlife Act are generally less
frequent, as they require a cabinet submission and legislative
debate.
Between 1871 and 1910, Indian occupants of the Prairie
provinces surrendered almost all Crown lands via Treaties 1–8 and
Treaty 10. Following the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements
(1930) it was recognized that Treaty Indians had the right to hunt
or trap on any unoccupied Crown lands within their Treaty areas.
However, because Treaty areas cross provincial boundaries
Treaty Indians in the Prairie provinces can hunt on all
unoccupied Crown lands regardless of provincial residency
(McNeil 1983).
In Alberta, hunting and trapping privileges granted to Indians
or Métis apply to reserve or colony lands only. Outside these
boundaries, Indian and Métis must comply with regulations
prescribed under the Wildlife Act. In Saskatchewan the Wildlife Act
(1979) amended the provisions of the Natural Resources Transfer
Agreements (1930) and added protection for the coyote and red
fox, which were formerly considered as nuisance animals. In
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
Manitoba, black bears (Ursus americanus) and gray wolves are
now classified as big game animals. Although they may be trapped,
royalties must be paid on their pelts before they are sold or
prepared by a tanner or taxidermist.
To minimize conflicts between trappers and landowners, all
jurisdictions in western and northern Canada require that
trappers obtain written permission to trap on private lands.
Who Can Trap
Table 2 summarizes the types of trapping licences issued and the
fees required in western and northern Canada. In British Columbia,
Canadian citizens or individuals with permanent Canadian
resident status who are older than age 19 can obtain a trapping
licence, provided that they have had previous trapping experience
or have completed the certified trapper education program.
Trappers must trap on their own trapline or have the permission
of a trapline owner to trap on their area.
In the Yukon Territory a Canadian citizen older than age 16
who has resided in the Yukon for 3 years can obtain a trapping
licence. Canadians older than 16 can obtain an assistant’s licence,
provided that they have resided in the Yukon for 1 year and have
the written authority from a trapline owner. In British Columbia
and the Yukon a qualified individual may obtain a registered
trapline by applying to the appropriate government for an open
area or by purchasing the assets of a trapline from a current
holder.
In the Northwest Territories, trapping privileges are held by
persons of native ancestry or those nonnatives who hunted and
trapped legally in the territories prior to 1938. Native residents
may take animals without a licence if they are to be used for food.
The General Hunting Licence issued to natives covers the trapping
of furbearers (Table 2). A Special General Hunting Licence
or Special Trapping Licence can be issued to other residents
(nonnatives) if approved by the local hunters’ and trappers’
associations, but few of these are approved.
Alberta has four types of licences covering the harvesting of
furbearers (Table 2). The Indian Trapper’s Licence allows Treaty
Indians to trap furbearing animals within the boundaries of the
Indian Reserve on which they reside, whereas the Métis Trapper’s
Licence allows Métis Colony members to trap furbearers on
Métis Colony land only. A Certificate of Registration for a
registered fur management area gives its owner exclusive rights to
the fur resource within its prescribed area. A Certificate of
Registration can be obtained by anyone age 18 or older. Spouses and
dependents of the certificate holder may trap without a permit,
but a secondary or subsequent certificate holder must have
written permission of the senior certificate holder to trap on the
lands prescribed on the certificate. A Resident Fur Management
Licence can be obtained by any provincial resident 14 years of
age or older; it allows the holder to trap areas not covered by the
Certificate of Registration.
Saskatchewan has three types of trapping permits available
for provincial residents. A Fur Conservation Area Licence allows
trapping within a specific area, whereas a Southern Saskatchewan
Fur Licence is available to any provincial resident outside of the
Fur Conservation area. Treaty Indian trappers in southern
Saskatchewan can trap on reserve lands without a licence, but
they must obtain a licence from the provincial authority to sell
raw fur. Treaty Indians trapping off the reserve must obtain a regular
Southern Saskatchewan Fur Licence. All persons less than 18
years of age must graduate from a firearms safety–hunter
education course to be eligible for a trapping licence. Those 18 or
older, or those who have held a game licence in the past, are
eligible for a Saskatchewan Fur Licence.
In Manitoba a Registered Trapline Permit is available to those
trappers living within the registered trapline districts who qualify
for such a permit. Manitoba residents living outside the regis-
tered trapline districts can purchase a Resident Trapper’s
Licence, which permits them to trap on unoccupied Crown lands
outside the registered trapline districts and on private lands.
Treaty Indians living on reserves outside the registered trapline
districts are issued a licence free of charge for trapping on
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1066 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson
reserve land only. At present, Manitoba has no age restrictions or
other mandatory requirements in effect.
Who Can Deal in Pelts
Any person dealing in the buying or trading of furbearer pelts in
any jurisdiction in western and northern Canada must be
licensed. All fur dealers are required to accurately record each
transaction with trappers and each disposal of furs purchased.
All transactions must be reported monthly (annually in the
Northwest Territories), and reports must be submitted to the
appropriate agency by either the 5th or 10th day of the month
following, depending on the jurisdictional requirement.
Regulations are strictly enforced because these monthly reports
are used to calculate fur royalties and to compile fur production
statistics.
In western and northern Canada, trappers may sell their fur
to a buyer who holds either a General Fur Dealer’s Licence or a
Travelling Fur Dealer’s Licence. The holder of these licences may
then resell the fur to individuals, to a fur broker, or through a fur
auction house. Trappers may also sell directly to individuals who
are making fur purchases for their private use. Many trappers
also ship fur directly to auction houses, eliminating middlemen
and increasing their returns. The Northwest Territories has a
fourth method for fur disposal. Because the fur may not be sold
at auction for several weeks, the Department of Renewable
Resources issues cash advances to the trapper. Later the auction
returns the advance to the government prior to sending the
balance to the trapper. In the Yukon Territory a similar program
is conducted by the Yukon Trappers Association.
In British Columbia, fur buyer licence fees are $50 for each
permanently established place of business, $200 for a traveling
fur trader, and $200 for a nonresident fur buyer. A Yukon resident
pays $25 annually, whereas nonresidents pay $300. A non-
resident fur buyer may obtain a time-limited licence for $25 in
the Yukon. In the Northwest Territories a resident buyer pays
$150 for the first 2 years and $10 per year thereafter. Traveling
dealers pay $200 for the first 2 years, $25 per year after the second
year.
In Manitoba a General Fur Dealer’s Licence permits the
holder to trade, buy, or sell pelts of furbearing animals from a
permanent place of business only. In order for a buyer to travel
the province and purchase furs, a Travelling Fur Dealer’s Licence
is required in addition to the general permit. Each licence costs
$25, but because the fur dealer is responsible for the payment of
royalties applicants may be asked to post a $500 bond.
Approximately 130 dealers are licensed annually.
In Saskatchewan a Resident Fur Dealer’s Licence is available
for $50, but under this licence a permittee may hire agents
(maximum three) at a fee of $50 per agent. A Non-resident Fur
Dealer’s Licence is available for $350. Approximately 70 dealers
are licensed annually.
In Alberta a Class 1 Licence entitles the person to trade in furs
for the purpose of classification, grading, and evaluation of furs
where buildings or warehouses are involved. A Class 2 Licence
authorizes the buyer to travel throughout the province to purchase
furs. Licence fees are $10 for Class 1 and $100 for Class 2
licences.
Regulations and Controls
Seasons.—Each western and northern jurisdiction has specific
seasons for the trapping of furbearing animals. The main function
of seasons is to ensure that trappers take furbearers only
when pelts are prime and worth their maximum market value.
Because latitudinal variations in climate affect pelt primeness,
regional variations in season opening and closing dates exist
within each jurisdiction. Seasons may be adjusted to regulate
total harvest or the number harvested of a certain sex- or age
class, or to control nuisance wildlife.
Alberta furbearer trapping seasons are established on the
basis of eight management zones. Within a zone, each furbearing
species has a designated season that considers the local climatic
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
effect on pelt priming, the status of each furbearer population,
trapping pressure, furbearer biology, habitat conditions, and
access to the resource. However, nuisance species (e.g., beavers,
bobcats, coyotes, red foxes, gray wolves) may be taken year-round
by landowners or their authorized designates.
In Saskatchewan, separate seasons are set for the northern Fur
Conservation Areas and for southern Saskatchewan. In addition,
nuisance beaver provisions apply in certain municipalities in
both the forest fringe and agricultural areas.
Manitoba is the only Prairie province where the final recom-
mendations for seasons are submitted to the Minister of Natural
Resources by a committee consisting of representatives from the
trappers’ and buyers’ groups and the Department of Natural
Resources. There are five trapping areas, each with special
seasons. Seasons are generally more liberal in northern registered
trapline districts, because trappers in these areas are partly, if not
wholly, responsible for sustaining furbearer populations for
their own use. Special trapping areas and the open areas have
more restricted seasons because of the large number of trappers
who share a limited resource.
Although seasons are generally 3–4 months long in British
Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Territory,
their lengths vary depending largely on pelt primeness. Beaver and
muskrat seasons may be several months longer to accommodate
the traditional aspects of harvesting those species, where the
harvest is socially, rather than economically, significant. Early
season closures protect breeding adults, especially females, for
such species as the mustelids, foxes, and lynx.
Quotas.—These have been used throughout the Prairie
provinces since the early 1900s, and have varied considerably
depending on the area and species. Quotas are generally maximum
allowable harvests. Any species of furbearing animal, whether
classified as a furbearer or big game animal, is subject to a quota
if necessary. To be effective, quotas must be strictly enforced, and
this is difficult given the size of each jurisdiction, accessibility of
trapping areas, and limited number of enforcement personnel.
There is much debate over the effectiveness of quotas, but they
have a useful application for management on registered
traplines.
In Alberta, depending on the fur management zone, quotas
are in effect for black bears, river otters, and wolverines. Quotas
are set according to the species’ population level, which is
estimated by the fur biologists and regional field staff. Quotas apply
in the registered fur management area, where enforcement is
facilitated by the limited number of trappers.
In Saskatchewan, quotas are in effect for the Fur Conservation
Areas, primarily for beavers. However, the potential exists for
setting quotas for other furbearers. At present the beaver quota is
used more as a measure of trapper productivity than for
conservation. To provide a check on trappers’ adherence to quotas,
Saskatchewan established the Saskatchewan Fur Marketing Service
in 1944. The ideas and principles were sound (to check the harvest
and to obtain the best possible prices for trappers). However,
the system proved to be unpopular with northern trappers. By
forcing trappers to sell beaver and muskrat pelts through a central
marketing service, trappers lost their credit rating with local
traders; consequently they could not obtain supplies for trapping
or domestic needs. Because of this major problem, compulsory
fur marketing was dropped in 1956.
Quotas have been used sparingly in Manitoba, either for the
protection of a species (e.g., lynx) or as a measure of trapper
productivity (e.g., muskrats and beavers). However, in the registered
trapline districts, quotas are used for both new and long-term
trappers. These quotas, which are largely minimum quotas, are
set to determine if new trappers are capable of operating a
registered trapline and to measure the use of the trapline by older
trappers. Trappers who fail to meet minimum quotas risk losing
their traplines. Beaver and muskrat trapping are commonly
regulated by this process, and quotas are usually equivalent to an
average harvest figure for each trapline. Aerial surveys may be
carried out if there is a significant discrepancy between the quota
and actual harvest levels. To regulate the harvest of other species
(e.g., fishers, martens, lynx) quotas have occasionally been attempted,
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1067
but they have sometimes been unsuccessful because of legal
loopholes or political influence.
Quotas have not been used by British Columbia, the Northwest
Territories, or the Yukon Territory as either a restrictive measure
or an incentive. In the Yukon, as part of an area-specific
management project, a marten quota has been used to protect
transplanted and immigrating martens.
Sealing.—The jurisdictions in western and northern Canada
have not used the sealing of pelts as a method of recording
harvest to the same extent that the eastern Canadian jurisdictions
have. In Manitoba, during the 1930s and early 1940s, wildlife
harvest control was accomplished essentially by the establishment
of game preserves and closed seasons (Carmichael 1973). Later a
system of registered traplines and fur rehabilitation blocks was
established to organize and control the fur harvest. Thus trappers
were expected to monitor and control their own harvests. This
system was preferred because sufficient staff was not available to
tag all pelts taken by trappers.
In 1946 Saskatchewan established a sealing system for beaver
pelts, but it remained in effect for only a few years. The many
administrative and enforcement problems, and a rapid increase in
beaver numbers, made it unnecessary.
Sealing has not been used in recent years in Alberta, British
Columbia, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. However,
in the near future the Yukon will implement a sealing program to
collect more detailed fur harvest and biological data on species
(e.g., wolves, wolverines, lynx) for which management efforts are
being increased.
Registered Traplines and Private Lands Trapping Areas.—A system
of registered traplines exists for the areas of Crown land in each
jurisdiction in western and northern Canada. Registered trap-
lines were established to eliminate competitiveness in the wild
fur harvest by allocating exclusive trapping rights for a defined
area to one individual or a native community group or family of
trappers.
Manitoba’s registered trapline system was established along
sections of the Hudson Bay Railway in 1940, and by the early
1950s approximately two-thirds of Manitoba was under the
registered trapline program. Manitoba has 46 registered trapline
districts divided into approximately 850 registered traplines, which
vary in size from approximately 50 km2 (20 miles2) in the central
region to more than 1,000 km2 (400 miles2) in the more remote
regions. These traplines have one head or senior trapper and 1–10
helpers. Group traplines are still common in the most northern
and southern areas of the province. The large northern traplines
are trapped as group traplines both because of traditional
practices and for safety reasons. Southern group trapline
districts have no internal boundaries and trappers are usually
from one community within the area. Manitoba also has “Special
Trapping Areas,” which evolved from the former fur rehabilitation
blocks that were organized prior to the registered trapline
system and which were designed to enhance muskrat trapping
and relieve unemployment. Trappers are given exclusive rights to
trap muskrats in a block of land but also may trap other
furbearers throughout the block. There are five Special Trapping
Areas, which accommodate 800 trappers annually.
The northern forested portion of Saskatchewan, designated
as the Fur Conservation Block, is subdivided into 88 Fur
Conservation Areas. These areas are further subdivided into trapper
zones (traplines), which can be designated for one trapper or for
groups of trappers. “Individual trapper zones” are common
within the southern portion of the forest in the Meadow Lake,
Prince Albert, and Hudson Bay regions, and are analogous to the
registered traplines used in Alberta and Manitoba.
Alberta’s registered trapline system, established in 1939,
comprises about half the province. That part of the province north
of the North Saskatchewan River and the western fringe area in the
southwest are divided into about 1,750 registered trapping areas
accommodating about 2,950 licensed trappers. The average size
of a trapping area is about 185 km2 (70 miles2) (range 26–2,050
km2 [10–800 miles2]).
Traplines were first registered in 1925–30 in British Columbia,
in the 1940s in the Northwest Territories (south of the tree line),
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
and in 1951 in the Yukon. There are currently about 2,900
registered trapping concessions in British Columbia and 370 in
the Yukon. In addition, there are four group areas in the Yukon
where trapping rights are administered by the Indian bands in
the group areas. Most band members are authorized to trap on
their own group areas.
The individual trapline registration system failed over much
of the Northwest Territories because many trappers let their
registrations lapse within 15 years of their first registration and the
government failed to enforce the system. Reasons for this
included improved employment, resulting in more seasonal
trapping; overcrowding of traplines as a result of increased family
membership; a lack of correspondence between winter and
spring harvest areas (i.e., two traplines); and increased costs of
operating a trapline continuously versus trapping on it for only a
few years and then letting the furbearer populations replenish
themselves. Although trappers in the southwestern Northwest
Territories still maintain individually registered traplines, few
registered traplines are found in other areas. There are also
Community and Registered Group Trapping Areas (RGTA),
where persons listed on the group licence have the exclusive right
to trap within the RGTA.
Recording Harvests and Pelt Disposition.—Information on the
wild fur harvest is provided by all jurisdictions in western and
northern Canada to the federal government (i.e., Statistics
Canada), which has maintained annual records since 1920. Some
of the potential problems with these data are discussed in Obbard
et al. (1987).
The adoption of the registered trapping area system by all
jurisdictions and the introduction of a computerized fur harvest
inventory system have greatly facilitated the handling of fur
harvest data and improved the accuracy of the data. Although the
systems used in each jurisdiction may vary, all rely on one or two
source documents that can be legally controlled, such as fur
export permits or fur dealer reports of purchases from trappers
(Table 3). The information on these forms is believed to be an
accurate reflection of the fur harvest, except for the small
percentage that is kept for personal use by the trapper or sold
privately (to unlicensed members of the public who are permitted
limited fur purchases).
Alberta was the first Prairie province to implement a comput-
erized fur harvest data system in 1977–78. Fur dealer returns are
matched with information from trapper licences supplied by the
Fish and Wildlife Division. Reports are produced monthly, and a
summary report is provided at the end of each season. Registered
trappers also provide an affidavit specifying their fur harvest for
that year.
In British Columbia and the Yukon, the fur harvest is
monitored through a computer system using individual trapper
licences. Export permits and fur buyer records are the source
documents. British Columbia trappers are given a permanently
assigned trapper’s number coded to provide information on the
individual and the trapping area. In the Yukon a trapper’s licence
number is new each year whereas the trapping area number
remains the same. This prevents the trapper from using an old-
year licence. In the Northwest Territories, harvest statistics are
obtained from recorded fur sales. All fur dealers are required to
maintain a record of the quantity of each species bought and the
price paid to each trapper they buy from. Similar export records
are kept when the trapper ships furs to auction houses. All sheets
are collected and summarized at the end of the season. Manitoba
implemented a computer system in 1984–85, and fur statistics for
open-area trappers were collected for the first time that year.
Today, Manitoba has accurate information on individual
harvests, trapper age categories, and Treaty Indian trapper harvests.
In Saskatchewan, information was obtained from fur dealer
records for all trappers, and a report reflecting the actual value
that trappers received for their furs is produced annually.
Although much of these data are currently sorted manually, it is
anticipated that the fur harvest data system will be computerized
in the near future.
Royalties and Earmarked Funds.—Royalties on wild fur have
been in existence in western and northern Canada for several
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1068 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson

Table 3. Fur harvest monitoring data source and summary for western and northern Canada, 1985–86.a

Harvest Quality
Jurisdiction Data source summary source of data Comments

Manitoba Trapper licences, - Trapper Very good Sorting now done by specific area for southern part of the
Fur dealer reports, - Trapping area province.
Export permits
Saskatchewan Trapper licences, - North: Trapper Very good No sorting by individuals or by specific area done for the
Fur dealer reports, - South: Trapping southern part of the province.
Export permits area, wildlife
management zones
Alberta Fur export and royalty - Trapper Adequate Open trapping area in the southern part of the province
ledger - Trapping area makes it difficult to pinpoint harvests.
British Columbia Trapper licences, - Trapper Adequate Native harvest is not accurately recorded, as licences are not
Export permits, - Trapping area required.
Fur dealer reports Because of private sales, records for some species are difficult
to obtain.
Yukon Trapper licences, - Trapper Very good Difficult to document private sales, but these are thought to
Export permits, - Local dealers be less than 3% of total.
Fur dealer reports - Enforcement
(district)
Northwest Trapper licences, - Trapper Adequate Unable to pinpoint specific harvests in large group areas or
Territories Fur dealer reports - Trapping area open trapping areas.
a
“Fur dealer” may include fur traders, taxidermists, and tanneries, depending on the jurisdiction.

years (Table 4). The royalty tax is intended to compensate Her the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Royalties were collected
Majesty in Right of the Province (the Crown) for the personal use in the Yukon from 1920 until 1978, when they were removed
of wildlife, a resource belonging to all residents. They have been because the revenue collected did not cover the administrative
used from the beginning as a method of monitoring wild fur har- costs. Saskatchewan is the only jurisdiction where royalties are
vests and they provide a system to offset the cost of administering reviewed annually. Revision of royalties on an annual basis
the fur resource. In Alberta, fur royalties are deposited in a ensures a fairer assessment for trappers and governments because
Humane Trapping Trust intended to fund development, average pelt prices can vary dramatically from one year to the
research, or trap exchange programs to further humane trapping. next.
Elsewhere, royalties collected are not earmarked for fur Export and Import Regulations.—These are similar to those
management programs but are deposited in general revenue. required by other jurisdictions in Canada. Most furs are exported
Trappers must pay a royalty on each furbearer harvested; the rate directly to auction by individual trappers interjurisdictionally.
varies by species and among jurisdictions and is paid on export Export permits are issued by government staff following royalty
of the fur. The trapper is exempt from paying the royalty tax on payment (where applicable) to the exporter. In addition to
furs sold to a fur buyer, who then assumes the responsibility to provincial regulations, the Convention on International Trade in
pay the royalty (although the trapper probably pays the royalty Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) requires
cost indirectly through receiving a lower pelt price). that anyone shipping bobcat, lynx, river otter, and gray wolf pelts
Today there is no royalty tax imposed on raw fur harvested in out of the country must obtain a CITES permit. These permits
are issued free of charge by government.
Table 4. Royalties on wild furs in western and northern Canada, 1985–86. A major problem in Manitoba (and to some extent in
Saskatchewan and Alberta) is the movement of U.S. furs through
Date of Species the province on their way to auction facilities in eastern Canada.
Jurisdiction Implementation affected Royalty Comments
Often these furs arrive without proper permits. Fur administrators
Manitoba 1923 All 4% of 3-year Includes black are attempting to resolve this problem by requesting that the
CDN avg pelt bear and gray border states implement an authoritative export permit so that
value wolf. movement of their furs will not be impeded. Throughout
Saskatchewan 1922 Alla 3% of 3-year Reviewed annually. Canada, jurisdictions do not require special import permits for
CDN avg pelt No royalty on raw fur but recognize export permits from the originating
value ranched furs. jurisdiction as the authority for incoming furs.
b Fur dealers and fur managers estimate that more than 80% of
Alberta ? All 3% of 5-year Unchanged since
the wild furs harvested in the prairie region are exported, a figure
CDN avg pelt 1976.
that likely also applies to British Columbia. More than 90% of the
value
raw fur harvested in the Northwest Territories and Yukon
British 1921 All 3% of 5-year Adjusted every 5 Territory is exported. Some species, such as the gray wolf and
Columbia CDN avg pelt years. wolverine, are exported less frequently, as they are purchased
value privately by northerners for rugs, wall mounts, or garment trim.
Yukon 1920 N/A N/A Royalties
removed in 1978
because of large
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
administrative Species Management
costs vs. revenue In Manitoba the modern era of furbearer management began in
generated. the early 1930s with the development of the first “fur rehabili-
Northwest N/A N/A N/A tation blocks.” The purpose of these blocks was to stabilize water
Territories levels and maintain muskrat habitat and populations in the vast
Saskatchewan River delta. The concept originated with a private
a Low-value and low-volume species sometimes deleted.
entrepreneur, Tom Lamb, and the success of the endeavor spurred
b Excluding skunks.
the government into action and resulted in the establishment
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1069
of other fur rehabilitation blocks. Today, each Prairie jurisdiction
has management plans for most species or is preparing them. The
methods used to gather management data are similar; however,
the effort directed toward species management varies in
accordance with need, funding, and priorities. Furbearer
management programs are generally a low priority in western
and northern Canada. Therefore, fur managers must make the
best of the limited funds available to carry out programs
effectively.
The beaver and muskrat are the species that have been
managed most intensively over the longest period in western and
northern Canada. Their behavior, abundance, habitat requirements,
and economic importance facilitate area-specific manage-
ment programs. In the Prairie provinces, beaver quotas are
assigned to registered traplines as an effective method of
monitoring trapper activities and harvest levels. In the open or
unrestricted agricultural areas, beaver management is oriented
toward nuisance wildlife control programs. Intensive muskrat
management is practised in the Summerberry–Saskram Marsh
in Manitoba, the Cumberland Marsh complex in Saskatchewan,
and in other large marsh complexes. Such programs consist of
controlling trapper numbers and quotas. Currently, Prairie wild-
life agencies rely heavily on fur harvest records as the basis for
species management. Harvest trends are useful for management
purposes because they often demonstrate population trends and
indicate trapping pressure. When combined with other factors
such as average pelt value, economic trends, field reports, and
trapper numbers, appropriate seasons can be established for
each species. This approach has a weakness in that not all
information required to reach a final decision may be available
when needed, or the data may not be adequate to identify rapidly
changing populations. Consequently management recommendations
may not reflect current conditions and could cause added
pressure on a dwindling population.
To improve species management, Prairie wildlife agencies are
modifying their data gathering techniques and implementing
computerized information systems. In addition, cooperative projects
are being carried out with trappers to gather more biological
information. In Manitoba the age- and sex composition of the
harvest are being established through carcass collection programs
(Rewcastle 1986). Such data, when used in conjunction with
harvest information, may provide an excellent indicator of
population trends and status and may result in more informed
decisions about harvest levels.
The need for more sophisticated species management plans
is becoming critical. With substantial pelt values on species such
as the lynx, fisher, and marten, it is difficult for managers to
achieve and enforce restrictive measures for harvests of these
species because of strong opposition from trappers. The lynx is a
prime example. Concern for the species was raised in the late
1970s and early 1980s, when it was demonstrated that the popula-
tion was declining at an alarming rate. In Alberta, attempts to
introduce restrictive seasons, including closures, have met with
considerable opposition from trappers (Todd 1985a). Manitoba
fur managers attempted on several occasions to introduce similar
measures but could not persuade either trappers or senior
department staff to support these measures. Finally, with the
support of the Manitoba Registered Trappers Association, a closed
season was established in 1985–86. The effect of the season
closure may not be known for some time. In 1986–87, Manitoba
introduced a quota system for lynx. This action was based on
field reports by regional staff and pressure on the government by
trappers to reopen the season.
This lynx quota exercise on the Prairies indicated the need
both for better provincial species management programs and
improved cooperation among jurisdictions so that seasons and
other restrictions for furbearers are similar and compatible.
Interjurisdictional cooperation would certainly benefit furbearer
populations at times when high pelt values place additional
pressures on a population. Political decisions would be easier to
make on decentralized issues, where large-scale cooperation
rather than local politics drives the decision-making process.
Species management concerns have been dealt with in an ad
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
hoc fashion in the Northwest Territories. Efforts to increase
muskrat populations by building dams to control water levels
were initiated in the Mackenzie River delta and the Slave River
lowlands in the early 1950s. These efforts have continued sporad-
ically, with the most recent structure being built in 1982. Muskrat
populations and their productivity have been assessed in the
Mackenzie River delta. Similar studies have been conducted on
beaver populations in addition to aerial surveys of beaver colonies
in selected areas. Beaver reintroduction projects have been
carried out in the Mackenzie River Delta, Rae Lakes, and Fort
Smith areas. In the 1950s there was an active management
program on martens, with regulated harvests from various identified
management zones. As martens became more plentiful and the
market demand waned, this system was abolished. Currently
there is an increased interest in assessing marten populations
and, if necessary, recommending appropriate regulation
changes. Other than monitoring the harvest of these and other
furbearers, little species management has been done.
In the Yukon a furbearer management program has been
developed during the past 10 years which includes population
status monitoring, population enhancement, and biological
trapline management (Slough 1985, Slough and Ward 1987). The
status of furbearers is monitored with several techniques that
provide cumulative information on each species. Fur harvest
data are often useful for indicating population trends (e.g., lynx
harvest is cyclic) provided that there is confidence in the accuracy
of the data and that the effect of independent variables influencing
trapper effort, such as pelt prices, economic conditions, and
voluntary trapline management, is considered. Questionnaires
on animal abundance and population changes are mailed
annually to all licensed trappers. About 40% of the trappers respond
giving information on each furbearer as well as major prey species
such as snowshoe hares, grouse, ptarmigan, and mice. Table 5
shows how responses for each species are scored.
The population level index (PLI), is calculated with the
equation:
Σ
i=n
PLI = ( Ri/9n ✕ 100%, where n = the number of valid
i=1 responses.
The population change index (PCI), is calculated as:
Σ
i=n
PCI = ( Ri)/n ✕ 100%, where n = the number of valid
i=1 responses.
Figure 3 shows the PLIs for lynx and snowshoe hares. The
snowshoe hare’s PLI was found to be highly correlated with
empirical hare densities (Slough and Ward 1987).
Biological monitoring has been conducted on martens
(Archibald and Jessup 1984) and wolverines (Banci 1987).
Biological monitoring uses sex ratios, age-class structure, and repro-
ductive performance of trapped populations (i.e., data are obtained
from carcass analysis) to determine population status and the
impact of harvest pressure on a monthly or annual basis.
Field surveys are also used to produce population indices and
habitat-use data for most furbearers. Active beaver colonies are
surveyed using standard fall aerial cache counts (Slough and
Jessup 1984). A technique has been developed to census
Table 5. Scoring system for trapper questionnaire responses used to evaluate
animal abundance and population changes in the Yukon Territory.
Weight Index
Response (Ri) (%)
POPULATION LEVEL
Abundant 9 100
Common 5 55.6
Scarce 1 11.1
Not present 0 0
POPULATION CHANGE
Increase 1 100
Stable 0 0
Decrease -1 -100
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1070 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson
Fig. 3. Population level indices for snowshoe hares and lynx in the Yukon
Territory.
populations of the northwestern muskrat which use pushups (in
winter) and bank dens exclusively and do not build houses (M. R.
Simpson et al., unpubl. data). The technique is based on aerial
counts of pushups in late May–early June.
The status of the arctic fox breeding population and its den
site use have been determined by aerial survey of den sites and
subsequent ground observations at each site (Smits and Jessup
1985, Slough and Ward 1987). A winter track-count technique is
used to estimate the relative abundance and habitat use of all fur-
bearers except beavers, muskrats, and river otters. The number of
fresh tracks of each species standardized for the distance surveyed
and the number of days since last snowfall are calculated
for habitat types or study areas; these are compared between
areas and within areas at different dates (Slough and Jessup
1984). These data, as well as data from research studies, are
applied to furbearer management programs. For example, a
region of physiographically isolated vacant marten habitats was
identified in the southwestern Yukon. This region was elected for
a reintroduction program between 1984 and 1987 (Slough and
Ward 1987). Biological data are also incorporated into species
trapline management strategies (presented in brochures and
in trapper education workshops) for trappers who are permitted
to trap within liberal seasons and without quotas. Finally, trapline
registration, which fosters a management responsibility in the
trapper, is an essential component of the Yukon’s furbearer
management system.
Research
Research investigations related to the ecology and management
of furbearers in western and northern Canada have been carried
out by both government agencies and the universities. Governments
initiated research to provide solutions to specific management
issues in the late 1940s in Manitoba and throughout the
1950s in other jurisdictions (except the Yukon, where research
was not undertaken until the 1970s). It was the first opportunity
most governments had to hire wildlife biologists as professionals
to deal with the management issues of the day. For example,
during the late 1940s and early 1950s, Manitoba employed J. A.
McLeod to conduct research on the biology and ecology of musk-
rats. This assisted in the rejuvenation and future development of
fur rehabilitation blocks. McLeod’s work is the most intensive
furbearer study ever undertaken by a government biologist in
Manitoba and his findings are still used as the basis for muskrat
management programs (McLeod et al. 1949, 1950, 1952). The
lack of founding within wildlife agencies to support internal
research projects led the agencies to solicit involvement from
universities by offering financial support in the form of grants to
work on specific furbearing species. A vast library of theses,
government reports, and journal publications of furbearer research
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
projects in northwestern Canada is available. A sample of this is
used below to illustrate the research interests.
Pastuck (1974) and Rock (1979) studied coyote ecology in the
southern areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan respectively. Hill
(1979) investigated the ecology of the gray wolf in southern
Manitoba. Phillips (1979) studied muskrat population dynamics at
Eyebrow Lake, Sask., and McLeod et al. (1949, 1950, 1952)
provided an in-depth study of muskrat ecology at several
Manitoba marshes.
Except for wolves, skunks, bears, and muskrats, the Alberta
Fish and Wildlife Division has had somewhat limited direct
involvement in furbearer research; most research in the province
is conducted by universities. Many aspects of coyote ecology and
behavior have been examined. Population dynamics were studied
by Nellis and Keith (1976) and Todd et al. (1981), home range
and spatial organizations were examined by Bowen (1982), and
response by coyotes to the reduction of winter carrion were
studied by Todd and Keith (1976). Todd (1985b) studied the demo-
graphic and dietary comparisons of forest and farmland coyotes.
The Rochester Wildlife Research Center is also noted for research
on lynx populations.
Field studies on lynx populations were conducted between
1964 and 1976, and the results provided a greater understanding
of lynx ecology and population dynamics (Nellis et al. 1972,
Brand et al. 1976). After studying lynx demography during a
snowshoe hare decline, Brand and Keith (1979) suggested that
curtailing lynx trapping for 3–4 years after the peak would result
in a higher recovery level at the next population peak. This
information may be valuable for management of other cyclic
furbearers which occasionally are affected by high pelt values.
In the Yukon Territory, ecological studies provide the basis for
many decisions on furbearer management, including information
for the primary trapline manager, the trapper. In addition to
the inventory/indexing efforts discussed above, research has been
conducted either by furbearer management personnel or by
academic institutions funded and directed by the government
biologist. Local management concerns and data deficiencies have
been addressed through ecological studies on martens (Archibald
and Jessup 1984), wolverines (Banci 1987), muskrats (M. R.
Simpson et al., unpubl. data), lynx (Slough and Ward 1987), and
wolves (Hayes and Baer 1987).
Little research has been conducted on furbearers in British
Columbia. However, a research initiative has recently been
started, with plans for expansion in the future. Ongoing projects
are investigating the relationship between logging and marten
distribution and abundance, and the impacts of herbicides on
furbearers and their prey. An index for river otter populations
was developed using data on beaver trapping in British Columbia
and Alaska (Saunders and Melchior 1984).
Most of the research on furbearers in the Northwest
Territories has been carried out by graduate students from various
Canadian universities, and in earlier years by the Canadian Wildlife
Service. This has included studies on muskrat, beaver, marten,
arctic fox, and wolf populations. Special studies were carried out
in the early 1970s to determine the potential impact of pipeline
construction along the Mackenzie Valley.
Research is critical to the improvement of furbearer manage-
ment programs and the survival of the fur industry. Recently a
humane trap research facility was established at the Alberta
Environmental Centre, Vegreville, Alta., to continue work started by
the Federal Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping. The
objective of this massive research program under the auspices of
the Fur Institute of Canada and the Alberta government is to
develop or identify at least one humane trapping system for each
of the furbearing species taken in Canada. This program
maintains Canada as a world leader in research on trap develop-
ment and furbearer behavior.
Limiting Factors
Furbearer habitats have received limited local impacts by
humans in areas of agriculture, logging, and settlement. Over-
harvesting is not a problem today as a result of the participatory
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1071

management by the trapper inherent in the registered trapline

system. The furbearer species are thus extant within their historical
ranges with few exceptions. Badger populations in British
Columbia have been protected from trapping since 1967. Sea
otters were once extirpated from British Columbia, but they have
been locally reintroduced and are now recovering under full
protection. Many species, such as the red fox, coyote, raccoon,
and bobcat, are tolerant of human influences and are thriving in
southern British Columbia. The range of the raccoon may be
extending north.
Infectious diseases are rarely detrimental to furbearer
populations in the region. There is some anecdotal information on
distemper causing a short-term decline in raccoons, and on rabies,
mange, and distemper affecting red fox and arctic fox popula-
tions. Red foxes showed a sharp decline in British Columbia
during the late 1940s either as the result of an epizootic or
competition from a growing coyote population, as suggested by
Voigt and Earle (1983) for Ontario. The coyote appears to have
displaced foxes in lowland habitat throughout much of the
region. Red foxes have extended their range to the arctic coastal
lowlands and islands, which is possibly due to climatic warming
trends. Trapping is well-regulated via the registered trapline
system, making over trapping uncommon. Illegal trapping is only
of minor extent.
Habitat destruction is always a threat to wild animal
populations, both near populated centers and where forestry is
practised. The use of furbearers by hunters is strictly regulated, so this
does not pose a threat to any population and minimizes conflicts
with trappers. Periodic predator control in livestock or wild
ungulate management is carried out where required. Control is
typically done by government staff, in conjunction with predator
and prey monitoring programs. Where necessary, the offending
individuals are removed in the most efficient and humane way
possible.

Rare and Endangered Species

In western and northern Canada, no furbearer species currently
being harvested has been designated as threatened or in danger
of extinction. Furbearer status reports for each jurisdiction
indicate that most species are stable or increasing in numbers,
except where habitat destruction is a problem.
Of all the furbearing species found in the Prairie provinces,
only the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and swift fox (Vulpes
velox) have been extirpated, and this has been partly due to wolf
control and black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)
eradication programs. The swift fox has been considered extinct in
Alberta and Saskatchewan since 1920, but attempts are being
made to reintroduce the species. Fur managers are currently
monitoring fur harvests for any indication that a species may be
in trouble. Fishers, lynx, martens, and wolverines, which
currently have a high pelt value, are of particular concern. The fur
price is particularly important to cyclic species, because a long-
term high pelt value can have a devastating effect during the
recovery period from a cyclic low (Fig. 4). Currently the lynx
population is showing the effects of a continually high pelt price,
and special management initiatives must be introduced to ensure
that its populations do not become excessively low.
Other furbearing species such as gray wolves, badgers,
bobcats, long-tailed weasels, and muskrats, which are either low or
decreasing in numbers, are affected more by habitat factors than
by trapping pressure. Restrictive trapping seasons are currently
the most effective method northwestern fur managers have to
maintain these populations. Habitat protection is a growing
concern of wildlife agencies; however, conflicts with other land
uses make it a difficult and often futile exercise of intra- and
intergovernmental relations.
Rare and endangered status has been given to the badger and
the sea otter in British Columbia, and both have stable or recovering
populations. Sea otters could conceivably recover, in the
absence of habitat destruction, to a harvestable population in a
few decades. Badgers are sustaining themselves in a continuing
conflict with agricultural development.
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
Fig. 4. Brian Slough holding a tranquilized lynx. Monitoring of cyclic furbearer
populations is a priority with fur managers in western and northern Canada.
(Photo: B. Tokarek.)
There are no rare or endangered species in the Yukon or
Northwest Territories, except for those at the edge of their
continental range (Table 1).
Bounties
Bounties were introduced in western and northern Canada
during the late l9th and early 20th centuries to deal with problem
animals. They were applied to attempt some control over large
populations of coyotes, red foxes, and wolves in the prairie and
parkland ecosystems, where there was conflict with the westward
and northward expansion of agriculture. Bounties were consid-
ered the most feasible method of controlling wild carnivore
populations, as their low pelt values discouraged trappers and
farmers from harvesting them for income.
In Manitoba there has been a long history of legislative
measures designed to control predatory animals. Between 1876
and 1965, various acts and act revisions were implemented in an
attempt to encourage the destruction of predatory animals such
as wolves, coyotes, and foxes. Between 1944 and 1965 the Province
of Manitoba and rural municipalities paid out $1.2 million in
bounty payments for predator control (Emberly 1968). This
prolonged bounty period had little effect on predator populations.
Consequently, in 1965, bounties were discontinued in favor of a
new Predator Control Act, which permitted the use of poisons for
control of coyote populations in the agricultural areas and the
reduction of wolf populations that preyed on barren-ground
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1072 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson
caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and moose (Alces alces). However, as
the secondary effects of 1080 and strychnine became known, the
sanctioning of the use of poison for predator control was
repealed in 1969. Regulations for control of predatory animals
under the Predator Control Act were repealed in 1971, and all
control for nuisance animals was placed under the Manitoba
Wildlife Act of 1981.
Alberta experienced a similar history in control of predatory
animals, as human settlement and development spread westward.
During the early years, control was attempted through
shooting, trapping, snaring, and poisoning, without much
government restriction. As settlement progressed the government
realized that action was necessary to protect furbearers and other
wildlife. Throughout the 1940s, various control mechanisms were
implemented, including bounties, professional trappers, and
contract hunters. However, the predator problem continued to
fester and in 1951, as a result of pressure from livestock
producers, coyote control in southern Alberta was returned to the
Department of Agriculture. Subsequent policy and legislation
led to a joint program between the departments of Agriculture
and Lands and Forests. Alberta was the first of the western
jurisdictions to develop a comprehensive, species-specific,
problem wildlife management program.
Saskatchewan also experienced a period (1936–49) when
bounties were used as a principal control mechanism for problem
wildlife. In 1949 all bounties were discontinued, as they were
not effective in controlling wild canids. The use of poisons was
common throughout the 1950s, but became less popular after a
decade of use. Since the late 1970s, trapping has been encouraged
to better control high predator populations and to handle specific
nuisance animal problems.
In the Yukon, bounties were paid on wolves between 1929
and 1971. The program was part of a more extensive predator
management scheme involving public and government use of
poisons. Since 1982 the Yukon government has once again become
involved in predator control in livestock areas, primarily in ungulate
management areas. Control is by government hunting, along
with the assistance of trappers and sport hunters. “Incentive
payments” have been made to trappers who have sold wolf pelts on
a government program (where an attractive minimum price is
paid), but not since 1985 (Jessup 1986). No form of bounty is
paid at present.
In British Columbia, bounties on wolves and coyotes were
initiated in 1905 and continued until 1954 and 1955 respectively.
The use of poisons has continued, although only under strict
supervision by the provincial government.
Bounties were introduced on wolves in 1924 in the Northwest
Territories. Payments continued in intermittent fashion until
1975, when the bounty was abolished. In 1978 and 1979 a specific
incentive payment for wolves taken in the Slave River lowlands
bison (Bison bison) range was in place. Since then, no payments
have been made for the harvest of furbearers.
Bounties have generally proved to be ineffective in controlling
predator numbers. However, they have shown some use in
stimulating trapper interest in the species. Trapper education
itself, in the absence of bounties, can have the same effect.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Aboriginal Treaty Rights
The rights of Treaty Indians to hunt, trap, and fish in the area
now comprising the Prairie provinces were confirmed in the
Royal Proclamation of 1763. Between 1871 and 1910, when
settlement was expanding westward, much Indian land was
surrendered in return for a guarantee that their Treaty rights would
continue on all unoccupied Crown lands. Introduction of the
first fish and game legislation by federal and provincial govern-
ments often ignored these special rights. Even today they are a
continuing source of misunderstanding and conflict (McNeil
1983).
The Natural Resources Transfer Agreements transferred
ownership and control over public lands from the federal govern-
ment to the three Prairie provinces in 1930. Each agreement
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
contains an identical paragraph that in part states “that the said
Indians shall have the right, which the Province hereby assures
them, of hunting, trapping and fishing game and fish for food at
all season of the year on all unoccupied Crown lands and on any
other lands to which the said Indians may have right of access”
(Constitution Act 1930). This provision is currently assumed to
govern the application of provincial game laws to Indians in the
Prairie provinces.
Court cases involving Treaty rights have, in recent years,
reaffirmed the assurances of the Natural Resources Transfer
Agreements and have raised many other issues and questions
about special rights. For example, do Treaty Indians living in one
provincial jurisdiction have access to wildlife resources in
neighboring jurisdictions because the original Treaty boundaries
overlay provincial boundaries? Who is eligible for Treaty rights? Do
nonstatus Indians and Métis also have similar privileges? These
issues are complicated by the 1982 Constitution Act. The effect of
recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and Treaty rights under the
Act remains uncertain, and this uncertainty will continue until
the new constitutional provisions relating to these rights are
clarified.
The impact of aboriginal and Treaty rights under the 1982
Constitution Act may have serious implications for all wildlife
managers in Canada. It gives those with special rights access to
the resource in preference to others who must follow regulations.
This situation may have serious repercussions for all trappers
unless measures are taken to ensure that regulations are followed
by all, especially for species that require additional protection
when their populations are low.
Treaty Indians in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories
have the right to harvest furbearers for subsistence (however,
few are taken during summer). This authority is granted under
the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act, both federal
statutes. However, they must abide by the laws of general
application if they are trapping for commercial reasons. Indians in
the Yukon must obtain a trapper’s licence and they are restricted to
traplines as outlined in the Wildlife Act. Two main furbearers
used for food are the beaver and muskrat, both of which are
plentiful. This right to harvest does not cause any management
concerns.
Indians in British Columbia must trap on their registered
traplines, but they are not required to purchase trapping licences.
However, they require an assigned trapper number in order to sell
or export their furs. Because native rights to subsistence hunting
is not guaranteed under any federal legislation, British Columbia
Indians must abide by the Provincial Wildlife Act.
Humane Trapping
Trapper education programs in each province or territory
instruct and promote the use of humane trapping devices and
techniques for the capture of all furbearers. Several workshops or
fur schools are conducted annually in various locations to
accelerate the acceptance and use of new humane traps.
Trappers are keenly aware that public sentiment favors
humane trapping procedures. This was never more evident to
trappers than when they witnessed the devastating effect that the
anti-harvesting pressure had on the East Coast sealing industry.
Until this occurred, trappers considered themselves somewhat
removed from the heavy anti-trapping pressure and believed that
such organizations would have minimal effect on their liveli-
hood. This factor served as a catalyst for trappers to unite and
organize toward a common goal in western and northern
Canada.
The first organized efforts toward humane trapping came to
the Prairie region from the former Federal Provincial Committee
for Humane Trapping. Requests by the committee and provincial
wildlife agencies soliciting for humane trap inventions resulted
in numerous devices being submitted for evaluation by trappers
in Canada’s Northwest. The response to this program demon-
strated the concern trappers had for more humane methods.
Since the first major thrust toward humane trapping systems in the
mid-1970s, provincial wildlife agencies and trappers’ associations
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1073
have become actively involved in promoting the use of humane
procedures and trapping systems. Individual trappers willingly
participate in field testing of new devices and pass on their
recommendations as part of the evaluation process. Several
western and northern trappers are actively involved on the
Humane Trap Research Development Committee of the Fur
Institute of Canada.
In 1982, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in
Canada to impose restrictions on the use of the standard steel-
jawed leghold trap. This trap is prohibited on land sets for all
furbearer species except the wolf, fox, coyote, lynx, and bobcat,
and the leghold trap used to take these species must be modified
with padded or offset jaws. The standard leghold trap may be used
in underwater sets if equipped with a sliding lock to ensure drowning.
There are also restrictions on chain length. Live-holding
traps must be checked every 72 hours on traplines and every 24
hours on private land. British Columbia is still the only
jurisdiction in western Canada to have enacted this type of trap
legislation. The other jurisdictions have been reluctant to make such
a significant move because a partial or total ban on leghold traps
is not believed to be a practical solution at this time. One of the
major problems is that complete replacement of equipment is
financially prohibitive for trappers in many communities. Trap
exchange programs and grants are in place in British Columbia,
the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon to lessen the burden on
the trapper.
Resource Sharing
Conflict between various resource users is a problem of increasing
magnitude in furbearer management in western and northern
Canada. Resource sharing issues are often restricted to local
problems within each jurisdiction, but other factors such as
agriculture and recreational land use are influencing the wild fur
harvest on a broader scale. Trappers (unless they own the land)
are only guaranteed the exclusive right to harvest the furbearers
in a given area and have no tenure over the land. As a result, they
have little or no say in matters pertaining to mining forestry,
agriculture, recreation, and water regulation (for hydroelectric
projects). Governments recognize trapping as a legitimate land-
based activity, but in the Yukon attempts to involve the trapper
in land-use planning amount to nothing more than advising the
trapper of pending activity on the trapping area. Other than
in Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and the Northern Flood
Agreement Area in Manitoba, there is no compensation policy in
place in any jurisdiction. Compensation may be awarded to
Alberta trappers who can demonstrate that they have been
adversely affected by oil or gas exploration and development. In
the Northwest Territories, trappers may apply for a grant up to
$4,500 for the loss of resource harvesting equipment in a natural
disaster such as a forest fire or flood.
The N.W.T. Renewable Resource Compensation Policy
requires developers to communicate their plans to trappers and
other resource harvesters. The main objective of the policy is to
avoid conflicts. However, developers are asked to provide
compensation for damage to equipment or disruption to
harvesting activities.
In the Prairie provinces, where there are large tracts of private
land, problems have developed between various user-groups
vying for the same resource. Recent activities in British Columbia
indicate a softening of the traditional antagonistic relationship
between trappers and the forest industry. In many parts of the
province, trappers now have the opportunity to comment on
cutting permits before they are approved.
Persons trap for seasonal or supplemental income, tradition,
food, or for the outdoor enjoyment. However, the pelt value of
wild furbearers during the past 8 years has increased significantly;
therefore the demand for the resource by hunters has upset
many trappers, who feel they are being deprived of income
if other groups are permitted access to the furbearers. A reason
for this is that trapping licences in Alberta, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan are inexpensive relative to other hunting licences,
and the avid hunter will purchase a resident trapper’s licence (for
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
open areas) in addition to other game licences. In this manner,
hunters can pursue their recreational activity over an extended
period and have an opportunity to obtain some income for their
efforts. Such competition for the wild fur resource has caused
some of the trappers’ associations to lobby for an increase in trapper’s
licence fees. Manitoba trappers feel that if licence fees were
increased significantly, trappers who depend on the resource for
income would derive greater economic benefits (D. McRae, pers.
commun.).
Another problem is the legal classification of some furbearing
animals. Black bears, lynx, beavers, coyotes, red foxes, gray wolves,
and wolverines can be classified as big game animals, nuisance
animals, furbearers, or a combination of these. This gives others
access to the fur resource on which trappers depend for a living.
Trappers are particularly concerned about furbearers classi-
fied as nuisance animals, because these animals can be destroyed
by landowners year-round. In southern areas of the Prairie
provinces, this issue has led to many clashes between trappers and
landowners, especially where beaver dams flood private land.
Government agencies encourage trappers to cooperate with
landowners not only to improve relationships but also to ensure
access to the resource. Throughout the Prairies, as elsewhere in
Canada, trappers must obtain written permission to trap on
private land. By cooperating with landowners to minimize nuisance
animal problems, trappers could establish exclusive trapping
areas for themselves and enjoy a greater benefit from the wild fur
resource.
EDUCATION
Trapper education programs are becoming an increasingly
important component of wild furbearer management. The
programs stress the need for humane trapping systems, furbearer
management practices, and methods of deriving the greatest
benefit from a renewable resource. Trapper education is mandatory
for first-time trappers in British Columbia. Trappers new to
the province must document previous trapping experience in
another jurisdiction or complete the trapper education course
prior to receiving a licence. Other jurisdictions may enact a
similar policy in the near future.
The Prairie provinces all conduct trapper education
programs. Although the objectives are similar, the content and
length of courses offered vary. Topics include biology and
management of furbearers, equipment maintenance and care,
trapline management, humane trapping, and fur handling and
marketing.
Alberta has the most structured and formal trapper education
program. Courses offered vary in length from 1 week to an
advanced 3-week course. The l-week course is a workshop
offered at more than 20 locations throughout the province each
year and is intended for both first-time and veteran trappers. The
3-week course in furbearer conservation, trapping techniques,
and marketing is conducted in cooperation with the Alberta
Vocational Centre and the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division.
The trapper education programs offered in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan are similar. Each jurisdiction offers 2- or 3-day
workshops from fall through spring. These workshops cover the
same topics as those offered in Alberta but are less structured. It
is anticipated that in the near future these courses will become
more formalized as trapper education courses become mandatory.
Saskatchewan programs are sponsored by Saskatchewan
Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture and by community
colleges, whereas those in Manitoba are conducted by the
Department of Natural Resources.
Trapper education programs in both the Yukon and British
Columbia are offered throughout the trapping season each year.
They are delivered by the trappers’ associations under contract to
the government. They vary from specific l-day workshops to 4-
day courses to intensive 7- to 10-day training programs. Emphasis
is placed on trapline management, humane and efficient
harvesting methods, and pelt preparation. These trapper education
programs are jointly administered by the trappers’ associations
and government.
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1074 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson
In the Northwest Territories, some of the native band councils
and hunters’ and trappers’ associations have carried out training
programs for young trappers using various government funding
schemes. The staff of the Department of Renewable Resources
carries out similar training projects. Short courses are held on
weekends to make it easier for students to attend. More extensive
programs are carried out with young persons who have left the
regular school system. The skills needed to live and work
comfortably and safely in the wilderness are emphasized. Subjects
include the use of humane traps, proper pelt preparation, fire-
arm and boating safety, camp preparation, fish netting, and
equipment care and maintenance. Workshops for experienced
trappers are also held where participants share information
about trapping and fur handling techniques and learn about
such topics as the animal rights movement, humane trapping
systems, and trends in the fur market. A series of instructional
video-tapes has been prepared by the territorial government as
workshop aids.
Generally, trappers’ associations and government wildlife
agencies in western and northern Canada are working closely
with the Fur Institute of Canada to develop standards for trapper
education programs that can be used nationally yet have sufficient
flexibility to accommodate regional concerns. A universally
high standard of trapper education is needed if the fur industry
is to remain an acceptable and legitimate use of a natural
resource.
Each province conducts public education activities. Manitoba
in particular has invested much time and funding toward these
programs during the last 3 years. The Wildlife Branch, in
cooperation with the Manitoba Registered Trappers Association,
conducts a school program where two professional trappers give a
prepared talk in Manitoba schools. The objective of the program
is to increase public awareness of the fur industry and of those
who depend on the fur resource for income. This program was
extremely successful, and requests in the past year have reached a
point where the program must be expanded. The presentation is
provided to approximately 10,000 students annually, most of
whom reside in urban centers.
TRAPPERS’ ORGANIZATIONS
Trappers have traditionally been viewed as independent, solitary
types who prefer to be left alone rather than become involved
with fur management controversies. The implementation of
registered traplines reversed this and set the groundwork for the
eventual formation of provincial trappers’ organizations.
Alberta was the first of the Prairie provinces in which trappers
banded together. Their organization, established in 1945, was
first known as the Alberta Trappers Central Association. It
consisted of registered trappers who were concerned about their
resource and wanted to take part in fur management programs.
Through their organization, Alberta trappers have had considerable
influence on government programs and the Association was
instrumental in the development of the compensation program
for losses as a result of oil and gas exploration which Alberta
trappers have today. In 1981 the organization changed its name to
the Alberta Trappers Association and continued to be directly
involved in all provincial fur management programs. The
Association holds an annual convention and publishes a quarterly
magazine.
The Saskatchewan Trappers Association began in 1969 as an
organization of trappers from the fur conservation blocks in the
north and was appropriately named the Northern Saskatchewan
Trappers Association. Ten years later the name was changed to
the Saskatchewan Trappers Association (STA), as trappers
outside the fur conservation blocks were included. The STA has
influenced fur management programs and continues to be a
strong voice for the trappers of Saskatchewan. It holds an annual
convention and publishes a magazine. In this way the association
hopes to keep trappers united to work toward a common goal—
the preservation of the fur industry.
The Manitoba Registered Trappers Association (MRTA) was
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
incorporated in 1972. Today, the MRTA has not changed its name
but in fact represents all Manitoba trappers. Like the Alberta and
Saskatchewan associations, the MRTA holds an annual
convention and produces a quarterly magazine.
The Yukon Trappers Association was formed in 1971 as a
marketing alternative for Yukon trappers. The head office is in
Whitehorse, where an agent receives and ships furs, provides
advance payment on furs, and sells trapping supplies. There are
local fur councils, affiliated with the YTA, in most Yukon
communities. The YTA is the voice of the Yukon trapping
community, and it lobbies government for changes in regulations
and for fur enhancement programs.
The British Columbia Trappers Association was founded in
1945. There is no head office but there are local chapters
throughout the province. Their primary function today is to act
as a lobby group on behalf of all B.C. trappers. They also conduct
trapper training programs under contract with the government.
In the Northwest Territories, Hunters’ and Trappers’ Associations
(HTAs) are active in most communities north of the tree line
and in approximately half the communities south of the tree line.
The Dené band councils deal with hunting and trapping matters
in several locations along the Mackenzie Valley. Trappers were
encouraged to form HTAs in the early 1970s so that government
agencies would have a focal point for community consultations.
HTAs frequently provide input into hunting and trapping
seasons, quota systems, incentive programs, and management
projects. The associations select the level of activity that best suits
their membership. For example, many of those in the High Arctic
have become involved in sport hunting and commercial fishing
ventures. Several engage in the trade of country food products
among communities. Search and rescue activities are often the
responsibility of the HTA. Each HTA receives a funding base of
$5,000 from the territorial government. A sliding scale is then
applied, which provides additional funds to a total of approxi-
mately $15,000 depending on the size of the membership and the
number of activities they undertake.
The trappers’ associations in western and northern Canada
are structured similarly to those in other areas of Canada. Each
association has a president and a board of directors, who are
representatives of regions within the province or territory. Within
the regions, trappers are organized into community or trapline
section bodies known as local fur councils or local chapters.
These influence local fur management issues. Their recommen-
dations are valuable because of their knowledge of local trapping
activities. Individual trappers, through their local fur councils,
have direct input into all fur management matters.
Regardless of where the associations are located, their main
objective is the preservation of the fur industry. Nothing has done
more to unite trappers than the threat imposed to their livelihood
by anti-trapping organizations. For this reason alone it is
anticipated that trappers will play a greater role in resource
management than has been experienced by any other group of
renewable resource users.
Developing and improving trappers’ organizations is a
challenging task. Not only do they face contemporary problems
with the industry, but considerable energy and money must be
spent to maintain communications within their organizations
and memberships. Differences in language, culture, and traditions,
and periods of isolation, impose unique problems for trappers’
organizations which are not experienced by other resource user-
groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Trapping has had a significant impact on the historical
development of western and northern Canada. Uncontrolled
exploitation of wild furs in the early days of the fur trade resulted in
the need for major fur conservation and management initiatives.
Registered traplines established in western and northern Canada
brought order and responsibility to fur management and
improved cooperation between resource harvesters and
provincial and territorial agencies responsible for managing
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson 1075
furbearers. Today, trapping in the region is closely monitored and
well regulated. No currently harvested furbearer is endangered. In
addition, the interests of the fur harvester are a major force in
support of furbearer habitat conservation.
Many residents have relied on the fur resource for income and
this dependency is still evident, especially during periods of
economic depression. Native people, who comprise most of the
trapping population in northern areas, depend heavily on the wild
fur resource for economic subsistence and cultural values. In
areas where seasonal employment is common, such as marginal
agricultural areas, people depend on the fur resource to
supplement their incomes. Given these circumstances, use of the
wild fur resource must remain an integral part of the livelihood of
present and future generations.
The complexity of fur management issues has increased
dramatically over the years, largely with the growth and expansion
of the human population. Loss of habitat, resource-use conflicts,
nuisance animal problems, and compensation issues have all
evolved directly from conflicting human demands. Increased
urbanization and Indian Treaty rights and land claims have
created tremendous pressures on the wild fur industry. These factors
have brought the human element to the front of fur management
programs and resulted in new philosophies and approaches for
managers to consider. This requires fur managers to become more
innovative in designing programs to satisfy the needs of the fur
resource, the fur industry, and its critics.
Throughout the history of the fur industry nothing has
caused more concern than the threat posed by the anti-trapping
and animal rights organizations. Their activities, which resulted
in the demise of the sealing industry, acted as a catalyst by startling
the resource user and creating a flurry of activity to ensure
that the entire fur industry did not meet a similar fate. The threat
to the industry has caused government agencies and trappers’
associations to direct major efforts into areas that would make
the fur industry publicly acceptable. The resultant boon to fur
management has proved to be beneficial to wildlife management
programs. In some cases it has produced increased wildlife
monitoring activities, improved trapper education programs,
increased public awareness of wildlife in general, led to more
humane harvesting systems, and, most important, resulted in
national cooperation between resource managers, user associations,
and the private sector. Without this concern, fur management
activities in western and northern Canada would probably still
be restricted to the gathering of biological data and setting
trapping regulations, with little interaction with either the
resource user or the public.
Despite the advances made in recent years, fur management
still has several significant issues that must be addressed. Fur
managers are currently faced with shrinking budgets and
increasingly complex responsibilities to meet the demands of the
industry. Treaty rights and land claims are important issues. Fur
managers must be prepared to deal with these, but the process
leading to their solution is outside the realm of fur management.
A major objective of fur management is to ensure the continuing
welfare of the wild fur resource for the benefit of all. Segregation
of privileges for resource users would only add to the already
complex task of fur management.
Wildlife programs often have low priority with government
and, unless there is an injection of funding from other sources,
the dedicated effort being put forward by resource managers
may be wasted. Resource managers, resource users, and the private
sector must all contribute if the fur industry is to survive into
the 21st century. Fur managers today are faced with the demanding
task of promoting and maintaining furbearer management and
harvesting programs in support of the use of a valuable resource
that is both plentiful and renewable.
We thank the following fur managers who contributed to this chapter:
Barry Saunders and Ralph Archibald (British (Columbia), Russ Hall
(Northwest Territories), Arlen Todd (Alberta), Wayne Runge (Saskatchewan),
and Richard Stardom (Manitoba).
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
LITERATURE CITED
ARCHIBALD, W. R., AND R. H. JESSUP. 1984. Population dynamics of
the pine marten (Martes americana) in the Yukon Territory. Pages 81–97
in R. Olsen, R. Hastings, and F. Geddes, eds. Northern ecology and
resource management. Univ. Alberta Press, Edmonton.
BANCI, V. 1987. Ecology and behavior of wolverine in Yukon. M.S. Thesis,
Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby, B.C.
BOWEN, W. D. 1982. Home range and spatial organization of coyotes in
Jasper National Park, Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:201–216.
BRAND, C. J., AND L. B. KEITH. 1979. Lynx demography during a
snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:827–849.
_____, _____, AND C. A. FISCHER. 1976. Lynx responses to changing
snowshoe hare densities in central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage.
40:416–428.
BUCKLEY, H. 1962. Trapping and fishing in the economy of northern
Saskatchewan. Univ. Saskatchewan, Res. Dev. Branch, Rep. 3. 189pp.
CARMICHAEL, R. G. 1973. Innovation and enterprise—a history of fur
conservation in northern Manitoba, 1935–1948. Manit. Dep. Nat.
Resour., Winnipeg. 39pp.
EMBERLY, G. C. 1968. Summary of Manitoba’s bounty system 1878–1965.
Manit. Dep. Nat. Resour., Winnipeg. 115pp.
HAYES, R. D., AND A. BAER. 1987. Wolf population research and
management studies in the Yukon Territory, 1985–87. Yukon Dep.
Renewable Resour., Fish Wildl. Branch, Prog. Rep., Whitehorse.
HILL, E. L. 1979. The ecology of the timber wolf (C. lupus Linn) in southern
Manitoba—wilderness, recreational, and agricultural aspects. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg. 147pp.
INNIS, H. A. 1956. The fur trade in Canada. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto,
Ont. 463pp.
JESSUP, R. H. 1986. Wolf harvest enhancement—a program evolution.
Yukon Dep. Renewable Resour., Fish Wildl. Branch, Whitehorse.
MCCANDLESS, R. G. 1977. Trophies or meat: Yukon game management
1896 to 1976. Yukon Dep. Renewable Resour., Whitehorse. 122pp.
MCLEOD, J. A., S. L. BALDWIN, AND R. E. MCGIRR. 1949. An interim
report on a biological investigation of muskrat production in Manitoba,
1948. Manit. Dep. Mines and Nat. Resour., Winnipeg. 63pp.
_____, G. F. BONDAR, AND A. DUDUCH. 1952. An interim report on a
biological investigation of muskrat production in Manitoba during 1950
and 1951. Manit. Dep. Mines and Nat. Resour., Winnipeg. 65pp.
_____, A. J. REEVE, AND G. F. BONDAR. 1950. An interim report on a
biological investigation of muskrat production in Manitoba during 1949.
Manit. Dep. Mines and Nat. Resour., Winnipeg. 202pp.
MCNEIL, K. 1983. Indian hunting, trapping and fishing rights in the Prairie
provinces of Canada. Univ. Saskatchewan Native Law Centre,
Saskatoon. 64pp.
MEREDITH, D. H., AND A. W. TODD. 1979. A questionnaire survey of
registered trappers in Alberta in 1977. Alta. Fish Wildl. Div., Dep.
Energy and Nat. Resour., Edmonton. 105pp.
NELLIS, C. H., AND L. B. KEITH. 1976. Population dynamics of coyotes
in central Alberta, 1964–68. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:389–399.
_____, S. P. WETMORE, AND L. B. KEITH. 1972. Lynx–prey interactions
in central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 36:320–329.
OBBARD, M. E., J. G. JONES, R. NEWMAN, A. BOOTH, A. J.
SATTERTHWAITE, AND G. LINSCOMBE. 1987. Furbearer harvests
in North America. In M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B.
Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North
America. Ontario Trappers Assoc., North Bay.
PASTUCK, R. D. 1974. Some aspects of the ecology of the coyote (C. latrans
Say) in southwestern Manitoba. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Manitoba,
Winnipeg. 159pp.
PHILLIPS, D. 1979. Muskrat population dynamics at Eyebrow Lake,
Saskatchewan. Presented at Western Fur Managers Conference, Prince
Albert, Sask.
RAY, A. J. 1974. Indians in the fur trade. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont.
249pp.
REWCASTLE, C. S. 1986. Furbearer carcass analyses and species status
report. Manitoba Dep. Nat. Resour., Winnipeg. 13pp. + appendices.
ROCK, T. 1979. Some aspects of coyote ecology in south-central
Saskatchewan. Presented at Western Fur Managers Conference, Prince
Albert, Sask.
RUNGE, W., AND E. SUNDU. 1986. Furbearer harvest trends in the Fur
Conservation Block of northern Saskatchewan. Sask. Dep. Parks and
Renewable Resour., Prince Albert. 21pp.
SAUNDERS, B. P., AND H. R. MELCHIOR. 1984. Otter and beaver
harvest relationships. Proc. Annu. Conf. West. Assoc. Fish and Wildl.
Agencies 64:143–149.
_____, _____, R. H. JESSUP, AND S. A. BOUTIN. 1987. Muskrat harvest
and management on Old Crow Flats. Yukon Dep. Renewable Resour.,
Fish Wildl. Branch, Whitehorse.
 WILD FURBEARER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN NORTH AMERICA • SECTION VIII: REGIONAL FURBEARER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
1076 Chapter 67 • Wild Furbearer Management in Western and Northern Canada • Brian G. Slough, R. Harvey Jessup, D. Ian McKay, & A. Bruce Stephenson
SLOUGH, B. G. 1985. Report on the status of furbearers in the Yukon
Territory. Yukon Dep. Renewable Resour., Whitehorse. 34pp.
_____, AND R. H. JESSUP. 1984. Furbearer inventory habitat assessment
and trapper utilization of the Yukon River Basin. Yukon Dep.
Renewable Resour., Yukon River Basin Study, Wildl. Proj. Rep. 1. 87pp.
_____, AND R. M. P. WARD. 1987. Furbearer management program:
1986/87 annual progress report. Yukon Dep. Renewable Resour., Fish
Wildl. Branch, Whitehorse. 59pp.
SMITS, C. M. M., AND R. H. JESSUP. 1985. Den distribution, harvest and
management of arctic fox in northern Yukon Territory. North. Oil and
Gas Action Program, Proj. G-15, Yukon Dep. Renewable Resour., Fish
Wildl. Branch, Whitehorse. 44pp.
TODD, A. W. 1981. Socioeconomic characteristics of registered trappers in
Alberta, Canada. Pages 2037–2056 in J. A. Chapman and D. Pursley,
eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md.
_____. 1985a. The Canada lynx: ecology and management. Can. Trapper
13(2):15–20.
BRIAN G. SLOUGH is a furbearer biologist with the Fish and Wildlife
Branch of the Yukon Department of Renewable Resources. He received a
B.Sc. in zoology from the University of British Columbia and an M.Sc. in
biological sciences from Simon Fraser University. He worked as a terrestrial
biologist with International Environment Consultants from 1977 to 1981
before joining the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Branch. Slough has conducted
research on beaver ecology, indexing muskrat populations, marten food
habits, movements, and reintroductions, arctic fox den site selection and
food habits, and winter track counts for furbearers. He is currently studying
lynx recruitment and population estimates, and the significance of refugia
for lynx populations in trapped systems.
D. IAN MCKAY is head of the Fur Unit of the Wildlife Branch of the
Manitoba Department of Natural Resources. He received a B.Sc. in
zoology from the University of Manitoba and joined the MDNR as a
biologist in 1969. He was appointed coordinator of Manitoba’s Wild Fur
Development Program in 1977 and became head of the Fur Unit in 1983.
He has conducted research on aquatic furbearers, the population dynamics
of ruffed grouse and sharp-tailed grouse, and muskrat populations in
southern Manitoba. In 1987, McKay completed a total review and revision
of Manitoba’s Wild Fur Policy and administration procedures, the first
since their original implementation in the 1940s.
– at time of first publication (1987)
C O P Y R I G H T © 1 9 9 9 , Q U E E N ’ S P R I N T E R F O R O N T A R I O.
View publication stats
_____. 1985b. Demographic and dietary comparisons of forest and farmland
coyote, Canis latrans, populations in Alberta. Can. Field-Nat.
99:163–171.
_____, AND E. K. BOGGESS. 1987. Characteristics, activities, lifestyles,
and attitudes of trappers in North America. In M. Novak, J. A. Baker,
M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer management and
conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Assoc., North Bay.
_____, AND L. B. KEITH. 1976. Responses of coyotes to winter reductions
in agricultural carrion. Alberta Dep. Rec., Parks and Wildl., Wildl. Tech.
Bull. 5. 32pp.
_____, _____, AND C. A. FISCHER. 1981. Population ecology of coyotes
during a fluctuation of snowshoe hares. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:629–640.
VOIGT, D. R., AND B. D. EARLE. 1983. Avoidance of coyotes by red fox
families. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:852–857.
R. HARVEY JESSUP is a fur manager with the Fish and Wildlife Branch
of the Yukon Department of Renewable Resources. He received a
Technical Diploma from Lakehead College in 1977 and joined the YDRR,
where he has worked as a conservation officer, wildlife technician, and
wildlife manager. He has conducted research on martens, beavers, and
muskrats, and his current research interests include fur harvest studies and
trapline management.
(Photo: T. Stephenson.)
A. BRUCE STEPHENSON was supervisor of wildlife research for the
Northwest Territories Department of Renewable Resources from 1977 until
his retirement in 1986. He received a B.A. in science from the University of
Toronto and an M.A. in zoology from the University of British Columbia.
He joined the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests (later the Ministry
of Natural Resources) in 1956 as a research scientist and remained with the
OMNR until 1977, conducting research on beavers, river otters, snowshoe
hares, small mammals, and white-tailed deer. He supervised the beaver
transplant and related aerial surveys in the Fort Smith area from 1984 to
1986.
– at time of first publication (1987)