Wildlife Conservation

Of the 1,000,000 square miles included in the North
Pacific Region, it is estimated that approximately 80 per
cent is capable of producing fur, game, and other wildlife
products. Wooded terrain, tundra, and marsh areas make
up the wildlife-producing territories.

For practical conservation purposes, the economically
important forms of birds and mammals may, be arranged in
four groups, as follows: (1) fur-bearing mammals, (2) big
game, (3) waterfowl and other migratory game birds,

(4) upland game birds.

Fur BEARING MamMats

Fur-bearing mammals are of paramount importance in the
North Pacific Region. Most of the present inhabitants,
both whites and natives, depend on the fur trade for their
living. It has been pointed out that the region can be
divided according to the characteristics of the fur harvest.
The principal classifications are the following:

(a) Fine fur harvest—In much of Mackenzie District,
all of Yukon, and all of northern British Columbia, the fur
harvest should be based on fine fur, such as fisher, marten,
lynx, and beaver. This statement is qualified by the fact
that in all three areas there is some depletion. British
Columbia is in the best position. The Northwest Terri-
tories have a close season on marten, the restoration of
which would put them ina very good position. Both beaver
and marten are rare in some parts of Yukon. Basically,
however, all three are fine fur areas and should be managed
as such.

Except for beaver, the fine fur animals are characterized
by low average populations, high value per pelt, and pro-
nounced cyclic fluctuations in numbers. In order to main-
tain an adequate stock over poor years, large individual
trapping areas are necessary. If beaver are not present or
not abundant, this applies with particular force.

(b) Harvest based on beaver.—In some parts of northern
Alberta and southern Mackenzie, fine fur is lacking except
for beaver. Beaver under Management, such as a permit
System, give a steady yield and provide a more or less
constant income, even though it seldom compares with the
high cash return provided by other fine furs. These beaver
areas were once fine fur areas, and the presence of beaver
to-day is an example that shows the ease with which this

Species can be restored. The restoration of other fur-bearers
is desirable.

(c) Cheap fur harvest.—In a portion of northern Alberta,
the basis of the fur harvest is a large catch of cheaper furs,
such as rabbit, squirrel, muskrat, red fox, and mink. Musk-
rat areas of high productivity, such as the Mackenzie delta,
do not come in this category, but are in a class by them-
selves. Cheap furs produce a low return for a great deal of

work, resulting in adequate subsistence only when abundant,
whereas fine fur trappers may make enough in a peak year
to provide a good average income for several years. Marked
cyclic fluctuations result in an undependable annual harvest,
and the income from the cheap fur harvest in peak years is
not enough to carry over the poor years. It is also important
to note that the supply of game for food usually is good in
fine fur country, fair in beaver country, and poor in cheap
fur country.

Past returns show that in each category the areas support
a comparatively large number of Indian hunters and a
comparatively small number of whites. Fine fur trappers
make a good living, beaver trappers make a living, and cheap
fur hunters make less than a living. This works out very
well for white trappers. Only where a living is to be had
are white trappers found depending solely on the fur trade.
It works out differently for the Indians, who depend on
trapping regardless of whether or not they are in a good
area. Experience likewise shows that the Indians are the
“family men” among trappers. Family ties are the exception
among the white men living solely by trapping.

It is sometimes claimed that a trap-line which can give
$6,000 a year to one white trapper could support four
Indian families. This assertion should be received with
caution, because it depends on whether or not there is
sufficient game to supply year-round food for so many.
It is undoubtedly true, however, that at least two Indian
families could make a good living out of such a trap-line.
Under their economy, grown men hunt game and trap
fine furs, and the women and children catch cheap furs and
add to the food supply as well. In sub-marginal trapping
areas, the Indian Affairs Branch is trying to add goat
raising and gardening to Indian activities. Even in the
richest trapping country, both of these are desirable. When.
cash is available, judicious use of imported food helps.
There are other aids to living, such as home canning and
handicrafts, that could be used to supply food and cash for
Indian families depending primarily on the fur trade.
Measures to improve the health of Indians are bound to
increase the Indian population, and a broadening of the
subsistence basis is desirable.

In the North Pacific Region, the Alaska Highway has
been built through a productive fur region. Every square
mile of the region was being used; there were no untrapped
areas. With regard to the potential changes in the exploita-
tion of a fur area resulting from the construction of this
road, it is obvious that the harvest should be under some
kind of control for the purpose of providing a sustained
yield.

The traditional Indian system of management consists of
the recognition of family or group trap-lines. Where blocks
of land are devoted to Indian use, as in the Northwest
Territories and Wood Buffalo Park, no further refinement

{ 131 ]