How To Shave A Beaver Pelt? The 80 Top Answers

Is Beaver Tail good to eat?

One of the most desirable sources of quality backcountry fat has been beaver tail. Beneath the scaly skin, a beaver’s tail consists of a spongy fat with a tailbone running down the middle. The flavor of the fat is very mild with just a hint of fish if you’re looking for it, but it’s in no way off-putting.

Do trappers eat beaver meat?

Early settlers and trappers of the American West enjoyed beaver and treated beaver tail as a fine delicacy because it is so greasy and full of flavor.

What can be made from Beaver Tails?

footwear. The scratch and waterproof properties of beaver tails make for excellent footwear, such as B. Cowboy boots. In addition, the small, intricate groove pattern can make for a striking and unique footwear that is distinctly different from both cowhide and snake-based leather.

How does beaver tail taste?

Some time before 1840, Rufus Sage said that the beaver tail “is prized by trappers, and resembles a fish in taste, though far superior to any of the Fin tribes.” [If it tastes like fish, it would have to be halibut or some other mild, tasteless form of fish.] Beaver tail fat scraped off the bone.

Where is Beaver Tail a delicacy?

Apparently, beaver tails are a delicacy in Canada too. But in a different way. Beaver Tails, a Canada-based confectionery chain, shaped their pastry to resemble a beaver tail…

Is it legal to eat beaver?

In short, yes, you can eat beaver. Before you go beaver hunting, you need to consider legal and safety issues. You won’t find beaver meat in most markets. In addition, beaver tail has always been considered a delicacy.

How much does beaver meat cost?

Our Price: $49.99 Beaver meat is red, rich, and delicious.

How much is a beaver tail worth?

Last season, beaver cost $8-10, raccoon about $5, muskrat $3, fox $12-22, badger $10-60, mink $8, coyote average $50-70, and bobcat average about $300. Part of the low market is due to overproduction of commercial fur in Europe and a weak economy in Russia.

What kind of meat is beaver?

Beaver is a finely textured red meat. Fat deposits are found outside or between the muscles, similar to venison. While the meat doesn’t dry out as quickly as venison does when cooked, it does dry out faster than most lean cuts of beef. Unlike venison, the fat does not go rancid as quickly.

Do beavers eat fish?

no Beavers are vegetarians and only eat leaves, roots, tubers, vegetables and cambium (or the inner layer of bark). In addition to willows and poplars, our beavers eat tule roots, brambles, fennel, pondweed and various bush plants.

Can you hold a beaver tail?

The beaver tail contains meat and fat that must be removed and the tail skin can then be preserved, as the trapper said.

What can I do with beaver skins?

For everyday use or for costume and decoration, furs were used to make outerwear such as coats and cloaks, garment and shoe linings, a variety of headgear, and decorative moldings and hangings. Beaver pelts could be made into either full fur or felt fur hats.

Can you tan a beaver tail?

Tanning beaver tails is a very demanding and delicate process involving many important steps. Unlike tanning snake skins, tanning a beaver tail cannot be done by everyone.

October 8, 2016 In Article

Part II

Welcome to the beginning of our blog post part II! We were asked by one of our followers to take a closer look at each coat. Today the focus is on the beaver.

the Beaver

If you read our previous blog post, you know that the beaver is one of the warmest furs you can buy. The warmth is twofold as beaver has naturally thick leather and a very dense, thick undercoat (puck), making the combination possible for one of the most durable and warmest garments around.

Earlier we told you that beavers can be plucked, clipped and natural. Plucked and shorn, which means that the top hair has been sheared off, shows the soft undercoat. We in the fur industry use both shorn and unshorn beavers to style garments for both men and women. We’ve found that men tend to prefer the more unshaved look. We have not yet discussed the colors of the beaver. In its natural state you will find medium to dark brown, golden brown and silvery tones. When it comes to shorn/plucked beavers, the variety of colors is almost limitless.

This type of coat can be worn and enjoyed for a long time as long as it is properly cared for. It is important that you clean and condition your garments at least every two years, regardless of wear and tear, to keep skin soft and leather from drying out. It is very important that you store your fur in a cold store every summer. Our vault is kept at a constant 50 degrees and 50% humidity (this is standard practice for the entire fur industry).

Sheared beaver fur coats have grown in popularity in recent years. While this isn’t one of the top furs that many people think of when they hear about fur coats, it does offer a long list of benefits to those who wear it. When considering this type of coat, it is best to research all the benefits so you can make the right choice for you.

soft texture

When you think of the beaver, you probably can’t think of soft as a description. However, if you have ever felt a beaver fur, you know that it offers incredible softness that is extremely attractive to fur wearers. When the fur is clipped, the softer undercoats are revealed, giving you a soft fur coat that everyone will love. It’s also a lightweight coat, so you don’t have to worry about a bulky coat.

Incredible warmth

Like many other fur types, beaver fur can provide you with an incredible level of warmth, making it ideal for winter outerwear. Even if you shave off the top hair, the soft undercoat provides the animal with the necessary warmth in the coldest winter months.

water repellency

The beaver’s fur is designed to drain the water so that the beaver can work in the lakes and rivers without feeling uncomfortable. While this is meant to benefit the animal, it also serves those who choose this type of coat for their coat. If it’s raining or snowing, this is a great option for staying dry.

Costs

The price of sheared beaver fur coats is often significantly cheaper than other options. If you are looking for a first fur coat or just don’t want to spend a lot of money on one, starting with a beaver fur coat can be a great option. In many cases, these furs are about 50 percent cheaper than some of the other types of fur.

durability

Beaver skins are incredibly durable, so you know your investment will last. The fur is firmly attached to the fur and thick, so you don’t have to worry about creating bald spots. It is still important to take proper care of your fur coat and to store and clean it properly. However, small mistakes with proper care are unlikely to cause problems, making it a good coat for beginners who want the look of fur.

Lower demand for beaver pelts translates into lower prices, resulting in a lower beaver harvest, which reduces the supply of beaver castor. If the demand for reels stays the same (which it has), the only possible outcome is a much higher reel price. We saw that at this week’s Fur Harvesters auction, where beaver prices averaged between $7.56 and $12.05. That’s about as few as in recent history, and recent low prices meant that only about 15,000 beavers were offered at auction. Why catch beavers when the fur is worth so little? With so few beavers on offer, castor oil prices skyrocketed to over $70/lb! In 2015, after the high fur prices of 2013-2014, around 25,000 beavers were offered in the same sale and the same castor bean peaked at $55/lb.

We trappers have recently commented on the fact that we catch as much castor bean as we do beaver pelts, and it is probably the first time in history that the price of castor bean has approached the value of the pelt. And the crazy thing is that it only takes a few minutes to extract castor oil from a harvested beaver compared to an hour or two to skin, mangle and stretch a beaver pelt.

We’ve reached a time in the fur market where we trappers must consider the value of the animals we harvest beyond the mere pelt. As a group, Trappers are naturally thrifty and tend to use as much of each animal as possible, but this market requires us to take that thought process to the next level.

Beavers are probably the most versatile coat wearers when it comes to utility. The fur is used to make clothing, fedoras, and other items. The castor glands are used in the perfume industry, as a food flavoring, and as a key ingredient in many trapping baits—not just for beavers, but for many other fur-bearing people. The oil bags, which are also used in the bait industry, are located directly under the reels.

Unlike many fur-wearing beavers, beaver meat is very edible. Many trappers are beginning to understand the value of beaver meat as a table food. Freshly harvested and properly cooked, it can be a delicacy. It’s a healthy, natural, lean meat that can be a nutritious by-product of the trap line. And if the meat isn’t entirely fresh when you retrieve it, or you have more than you can eat, a lot of other things like it too. Beaver meat is one of the most effective trapping baits available and is a base in many formulated commercial baits as well as in homemade concoctions. It’s also great dog food, and many northern sled dog teams are fed beaver meat.

Beavers have unique, flat, leathery tails that can also be useful. The sclera on the tail is often used to make wallets and other crafting items. Beneath the leather, beaver tails are incredibly greasy. This fat can be processed into beaver tail oil, which is a popular ingredient in fishing bait.

In addition to all of these uses, beaver skulls and claws can also have some market value. And let’s not forget the value of harvesting beavers to maintain healthy populations and prevent flooding and other animal harm. Many landowners are willing to pay for your services if you are a responsible and effective trapper.

If we think outside the box and maximize all parts of the beavers we catch, we won’t just catch pelts or castor beans. We hunt for beavers, and if we’re creative enough, we might be able to squeeze a small profit out of the beaver we catch, even in a low fur market.

Global industry in the purchase and sale of animal skins

A fur shop in Tallinn Estonia in 2019

The fur trade is a global industry that deals with the buying and selling of animal fur. Since the establishment of a world fur market in the early modern period, furs from mammals of the boreal, polar and cold temperate zones have been valued most. Historically, trade stimulated the exploration and settlement of Siberia, northern North America, and the South Shetland and South Sandwich Islands.

Today, the importance of the fur trade has declined; It is based on pelts produced on fur farms and regulated fur carrier trapping, but is controversial. Animal rights organizations oppose the fur trade, arguing that animals are brutally killed and sometimes skinned alive.[1] Fur has been replaced by synthetic imitations in some garments, such as collars on parka hoods.

Russian fur trade

Before the European colonization of the Americas, Russia was a major supplier of fur pelts to Western Europe and parts of Asia. Its trade developed in the early Middle Ages (AD 500–1000), initially through exchanges at posts around the Baltic and Black Seas. The main destination of the trading market was the German city of Leipzig. Kievan Rus, the first Russian state, was the first purveyor of the Russian fur trade.

Originally, Russia exported raw pelts, most of which consisted of marten, beaver, wolf, fox, squirrel and rabbit skins. Between the 16th and 18th centuries, Russians began settling in Siberia, a region rich in many species of mammals such as arctic fox, lynx, sable, sea otter, and ermine. The Russian Empire expanded into North America, particularly Alaska, in search of valuable sea otter pelts, first used in China and later used by the northern fur seal. From the 17th to the second half of the 19th century, Russia was the world’s largest supplier of fur. The fur trade played a crucial role in the development of Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Russian colonization of the Americas. Acknowledging the importance of trade to the Siberian economy, the sable is a regional symbol of the Sverdlovsk Ural region and the Novosibirsk, Tyumen, and Irkutsk Siberian regions of Russia.[4]

European contact with North America, with its vast forests and wildlife, notably the beaver, resulted in the continent becoming an important supplier of fur pelts for the fur felt hat and fur trimmings and clothing trade in Europe in the 17th century. Fur was used to make warm clothing, a critical consideration prior to the organization of coal distribution for heating. Portugal and Spain played a major role in the fur trade after the 15th century with their trade in fur hats.

Siberian fur trade

As early as the 10th century, Novgorod merchants and boyars had exploited the fur deposits “beyond the Portage,” a watershed on the White Lake that is the gateway to the entire north-western part of Eurasia. They began establishing trading posts along the Volga and Vychegda rivers and required the Komi to give them furs as tribute. Novgorod, the main fur trading center, thrived as the easternmost trading post of the Hanseatic League. The Novgorodians continued to expand east and north, coming into contact with the Pechora people of the Pechora river valley and the Ugra people living near the Urals. These two native tribes put up more resistance than the Komi and killed many Russian tribute collectors in the 10th and 11th centuries. As Moscow rose to power in the 15th century and proceeded with the “gathering of Russian lands,” the Moscow state began to compete with the Novgorodians to the north. During the 15th century Moscow began to subdue many native tribes. One strategy was to exploit antagonisms between tribes, particularly the Komi and Yugra, by recruiting men from one tribe to fight in an army against the other tribe. Campaigns against native tribes in Siberia remained insignificant until they began on a much larger scale in 1483 and 1499.

In addition to the Novgorodians and the natives, the Muscovites also had to contend with the various Muslim Tatar khanates east of Moscow. In 1552, Ivan IV, Tsar of All Russia, took a significant step towards securing Russian hegemony in Siberia when he sent a large army to attack the Kazan Tatars and eventually conquered territory from the Volga to the Ural Mountains. It was then that the phrase “ruler of Obdor, Konda and all Siberian lands” became part of the Tsar’s title in Moscow. Despite this, trouble arose after 1558 when Ivan IV dispatched Grigory Stroganov [ru] (c. 1533–1577) to colonize lands on the Kama and subjugate and subjugate the Komi who lived there. The Stroganov family soon (1573) came into conflict with the Khan of Sibir, into whose lands they invaded. Ivan told the Stroganovs to hire Cossack mercenaries to protect the new settlement from the Tatars. From around 1581, the band of Cossacks led by Yermak Timofeevich fought many battles, culminating in a Tatar victory (1584) and the temporary end of the Russian occupation of the region. In 1584, Ivan’s son Fyodor sent military governors (voivodes) and soldiers to retake the Yermak conquests and formally annex the lands of the Sibir Khanate. Similar skirmishes with Tatars took place across Siberia as Russian expansion continued.

Russian conquerors treated the natives of Siberia as easily exploited enemies who were inferior to them. As they advanced deeper into Siberia, traders built outposts or winter huts called Zimovya [ru] where they lived and collected fur tributes from local tribes. By 1620, Russia ruled the country from the Urals east to the Yenisei Valley and south to the Altai Mountains, covering about 1.25 million square miles of land. Furs became Russia’s greatest source of wealth in the 16th and 17th centuries. Substantial capital was required to keep up with the advances of Western Europe, and Russia had no sources of gold and silver, but it did have furs, which became known as “soft gold”, which provided Russia with hard currency. The Russian government received revenue from the fur trade through two taxes, the Yasak (or Iasak) tax on natives and the 10 percent “Sovereign Tithe Tax” levied on both the capture and sale of furskins. Furs were in high demand in Western Europe, especially sable and marten, as European forest resources had been over-hunted and furs had become extremely scarce. The fur trade allowed Russia to buy goods missing from Europe, such as lead, tin, precious metals, textiles, firearms, and sulfur. Russia also traded furs with Ottoman Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries in exchange for silk, textiles, spices and dried fruit. The high prices that sable, black fox, and marten pelts could fetch in international markets sparked a “fur fever,” with many Russians migrating to Siberia as independent trappers. Tens of thousands of sable and other valuable pelts were harvested in Siberia every year from 1585 to 1680.

Yasak in Siberia Cossacks gather in Siberia

The main way for the Moscow state to obtain furs was by collecting a fur tribute called Yasak from the Siberian aborigines. Yasak was usually a fixed number of sable pelts that every male tribesman at least fifteen years old had to supply to Russian officials. Officials enforced Yasak through coercion and hostage-taking, usually the tribal chiefs or members of the chief’s family. At first the Russians were content to trade with the natives, exchanging goods such as pots, axes and beads for the valuable sables which the natives did not value, but a greater demand for furs meant that force and coercion became the primary means to get the furs. The biggest problem with the Yasak system was that Russian governors were vulnerable to corruption because they were not paid. They resorted to illegal means to obtain furs for themselves, including bribing customs officials to personally collect Yasak, blackmailing natives by reclaiming Yasak multiple times, or exacting tribute from independent trappers.

Russian fur trappers, called promyshlenniki, hunted in one of two groups of 10–15 men, called vatagi [ru]. The first was an independent group of blood relatives or non-relatives who contributed an equal share of the cost of the hunting expedition; The second was a group of hired hunters who took part in expeditions funded entirely by the trading companies that employed them. Members of an independent Vataga cooperated and shared all the necessary labors related to fur trapping, including making and setting traps, building forts and camps, piling up firewood and grain, and catching fish. All of the skins went into a common pool, which the band divided equally among themselves after Russian officials collected the tithing tax. On the other hand, a trading company provided hired fur trappers with the money needed for transport, food, and supplies, and when the hunt was complete, the employer received two-thirds of the furs and the remainder were sold, with the proceeds divided equally among the hired hands. During the summer, Promyshlenniki set up a summer camp to store grain and fish, and many worked in agriculture for extra money. In late summer or early fall, the Vatagi left their hunting grounds, surveyed the area, and set up winter camp. Each member of the group set at least 10 traps and the Vatagi divided into smaller groups of 2 to 3 men who worked together to maintain specific traps. Promyshlenniki checked the traps daily, resetting them or replacing the bait whenever necessary. The Promyshlenniki used both passive and active hunting strategies. The passive approach involved setting traps, while the active approach employed hounds and bows and arrows. Occasionally hunters would also follow sable tracks to their burrows around which they would place nets and wait for the sables to emerge.

The hunting season started around the time of the first snow in October or November and lasted until spring. Hunting trips lasted two to three years on average, but occasionally longer. Due to the long hunting season and the fact that the journey back to Russia was difficult and costly, many Promyshlenniki from the 1650s to 1660s chose to stay and settle in Siberia. From 1620 to 1680 a total of 15,983 trappers were active in Siberia.

North American fur trade

fur hat industry

The North American fur trade began between Europeans and First Nations as early as the 15th century (see: Early French fur trade) and was central to the early history of contact between Europeans and the Native peoples of what is now the United States and Canada. In 1578 there were 350 European fishing vessels in Newfoundland. Sailors began trading metal tools (especially knives) for the worn-out pelts of the natives. The first pelts to be in demand were beaver and sea otter, as well as the occasional deer, bear, stoat and skunk.

Fur robes were blankets sewn together from native, tanned beaver skins. Called castor grass in French and “Coat Beaver” in English, the skins were soon recognized by the newly developed felt hat industry as being particularly useful for felting. Some historians trying to explain the term castor grass have assumed that the coat of beaver was rich in human oils because of being worn for so long (much of the top coat was worn away with use, exposing the valuable undercoat) and such further that made it attractive to the hatters. This seems unlikely as fat interferes with wool felting rather than enhancing it. In the 1580s, beaver wool was the main raw material used by French felt hat makers. Soon after, hat makers in England began using it, particularly after Huguenot refugees brought their skills and tastes from France.

early organization

Outline map of the “beaver hunting grounds” described in “Deed from the Five Nations to the King, of their Beaver Hunting Ground”, also known as the Nanfan Treaty of 1701

Captain Chauvin made the first organized attempt to control the fur trade in New France. In 1599 he acquired a monopoly from Henry IV and attempted to establish a colony near the mouth of the Saguenay River at Tadoussac. French explorers such as Samuel de Champlain, voyageurs and coureur des bois such as Étienne Brûlé, Radisson, La Salle and Le Sueur forged ties with the Native Americans in search of routes across the continent and further developed the trade in furs and items carried by the Europeans be considered “common”. Winter pelts from mammals were prized for their warmth, particularly animal pelts for beaver wool felt hats, which were an expensive status symbol in Europe. Such was the demand for beaver wool felt hats that the beaver had largely disappeared from Europe and European Russia through exploitation.

In 1613, Dallas Carite and Adriaen Block led expeditions to establish fur trading relationships with the Mohawk and Mohican. By 1614, the Dutch were sending ships to make large economic returns from the fur trade. The New Netherland fur trade via the port of New Amsterdam depended largely on the trading depot at Fort Orange (now Albany) on the upper Hudson River. Much of the fur is believed to have originated in Canada and was smuggled south by entrepreneurs hoping to circumvent the monopoly imposed by the colony there.

England entered the American fur trade more slowly than France and the Dutch Republic, but once English colonies were established, developing companies learned that furs offered the colonists the best way to return value to the mother country. Furs were shipped from Virginia shortly after 1610, and Plymouth Colony shipped significant quantities of beavers to their London agents in the 1620s and 1630s. London merchants tried to take over France’s fur trade in the St. Lawrence valley. Sir David Kirke took advantage of one of England’s wars with France, conquering Quebec in 1629 and bringing the year’s fur production back to London. Other English merchants also traded furs in the Saint Lawrence River region in the 1630s, but this was officially discouraged. These efforts ceased when France increased its presence in Canada.

Much of the fur trade in North America was dominated in the 17th and 18th centuries by the Canadian fur transport network, which developed in New France under the fur monopoly held first by the Company of One Hundred Associates, then followed in 1664 by the French West Indies Company, which established the fur trapping and shipping further west through a network of frontier forts that eventually became the York Factory in Hudson Bay in the mid-17th century. Meanwhile, the New England fur trade was also expanding, not only inland but also north along the coast to the Bay of Fundy region. London’s access to quality furs was greatly improved with the takeover of New Amsterdam, after which the fur trade of that colony (now called New York) fell into English hands with the 1667 Treaty of Breda.

Fur traders in Canada, trading with Native Americans, 1777

In 1668 the English fur trade entered a new phase. Two French citizens, Pierre-Esprit Radisson and Médard des Groseilliers, had traded west of Lake Superior with great success between 1659 and 1660, but on their return to Canada most of their pelts were confiscated by the authorities. Her trading voyage had convinced her that the best fur country lay far to the north and west, and best reached by ships entering the Hudson Bay. Their treatment in Canada indicated that they would not find support for their program in France. The pair went to New England, where they found local financial support for at least two attempts to reach the Hudson Bay, both of which were unsuccessful. However, their ideas had reached the ears of the English authorities, and in 1665 Radisson and Groseilliers were persuaded to go to London. After some setbacks, a number of English investors were found who supported another attempt for the Hudson Bay.

Two ships were sent out in 1668. One, with Radisson on board, was forced to turn back, but the other, the Nonsuch, with Groseilliers, entered the bay. There she was able to trade with the aborigines and collect a fine batch of beaver pelts before the expedition returned to London in October 1669. The enthusiastic investors scrambled for a royal charter, which they received the next year. This charter created the Hudson’s Bay Company and granted it a monopoly to trade on all rivers that emptied into the Hudson Bay. Beginning in 1670, the Hudson’s Bay Company sent two to three merchant ships into the bay each year. They would bring back pelts (mainly beavers) and sell them, sometimes by private contract but usually through public auctions. The beaver was mainly bought for the English milliner’s trade, while the fine furs went to the Netherlands and Germany.

Meanwhile, a deerskin trade based in the export center of Charleston, South Carolina, was established in the southern colonies around 1670. Word spread among native hunters that Europeans would trade furs for European-made goods, which were highly sought after in native communities. Caroline traders stocked ax heads, knives, awls, fish hooks, fabrics of various types and colors, wool blankets, linen shirts, cauldrons, jewellery, glass beads, muskets, ammunition and powder to be exchanged “per hide”.

Colonial trading posts in the southern colonies also introduced many types of alcohol (particularly brandy and rum) for trade.[21] European traders flocked to the North American continent and made huge profits from the stock market. For example, a metal ax head was exchanged for a beaver skin (also called “beaver blanket”). The same fur could fetch enough to buy dozens of ax heads in England, making the fur trade extremely profitable for Europeans. The natives used the iron ax heads to replace stone ax heads, which they had made by hand in a labor-intensive process, and so they too benefited greatly from the trade. The colonists began to see alcohol’s negative effects on the natives, and the chiefs objected to its sale and trade. The 1763 Royal Proclamation banned the sale of alcohol by European settlers to the Indians of Canada after the British took over the territory after defeating France in the Seven Years’ War (known in North America as the French and Indian Wars).

After the British takeover of Canada from France, control of the fur trade in North America was consolidated under the British government for a period until the United States was formed and became an important source of furs, which were also shipped to Europe in the nineteenth century,[22 ] along with the largely unsettled territory of Russian America, which also became a significant source of furs during this period.[23] The fur trade began to decline significantly from the 1830s after changing attitudes and fashions in Europe and America, which were no longer so focused on specific garments such as beaver hats, fueling the growing demand for furs and fueling creation and expansion of the fur trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, although new trends and occasional revivals of earlier fashions keep the fur trade ebb and flow to the present day.[24]

Socioeconomic Relationships

Often the political advantages of the fur trade became more important than the economic aspects. Trade was a way of forging alliances and maintaining good relations between different cultures. The fur traders were men of wealth and social standing. Younger men were often single when they went to North America to enter the fur trade; They married or lived with high-ranking Indian women of similar status in their own cultures. Fur trappers and other workers usually had relationships with low-ranking women. Many of their mixed-race descendants developed their own culture, now called Métis in Canada, which was then based on fur trapping and other frontier activities.

In some cases, both Native American and Euro-American cultures excluded mixed-race offspring. If Native Americans were a tribe with a patrilineal kinship system, they considered children born to a white father as white, in a sort of hypodecent classification, although the mother and the Native American tribe could take care of them. Europeans tended to classify children of aboriginal women as aboriginal regardless of father, similar to the hypodescension of their classification of the children of slaves. The Métis of Canada’s Red River region were so numerous that they developed a Creole language and culture. Since the late 20th century, the Métis have been recognized as a First Nations ethnic group in Canada. Interracial relations gave rise to a two-tier mixed-race class, in which descendants of fur traders and chiefs rose to prominence in some of Canada’s social, political, and economic circles. Descendants of the lower class formed the bulk of the separate Métis culture, which was based on hunting, trapping, and agriculture.

With wealth at stake, various European-American governments competed with various Native societies for control of the fur trade. Native Americans sometimes based decisions on which side to support in time of war on which people had honestly provided them with the best trade goods. Because trade was so important politically, Europeans sought to regulate it, hoping (often to no avail) to prevent abuse. Unscrupulous traders sometimes defrauded natives by dousing them with alcohol during the transaction, which later caused resentment and often resulted in violence.

In 1834, John Jacob Astor, who had created the American Fur Company’s huge monopoly, retired from the fur trade. He saw the decline in fur animals and realized that the market was changing as beaver hats went out of style. The expansion of European settlements crowded out native communities from the best hunting grounds. European demand for furs eased as fashion trends changed. Native American lifestyles were transformed by trade. To continue to maintain dependent European goods and pay their debts, they often resorted to selling land to the European settlers. Their resentment of the forced sales contributed to future wars.

After the United States gained independence, it regulated trade with Native Americans through the Indian Intercourse Act, first passed on July 22, 1790. The Bureau of Indian Affairs issued licenses to trade in Indian Territory. In 1834 this was defined as most of the United States west of the Mississippi where miners and traders from Mexico operated freely.

Early exploration groups were often fur-trading expeditions, many of which were the first documented instances of Europeans reaching certain regions of North America. For example, Abraham Wood sent fur traders on reconnaissance expeditions into southern Appalachia and discovered the New River along the way. Simon Fraser was a fur trader who explored much of the Fraser River in British Columbia.

role in economic anthropology

Economic historians and anthropologists have studied the important role of the fur trade in early North American economies, but have been unable to agree on a theoretical framework to describe native economic patterns.

John C. Phillips and J.W. Linking the fur trade to an imperial power struggle, Smurr posited that the fur trade served both as an incentive for expansion and as a method of maintaining dominance. The authors dismissed the experience of individuals and looked for connections on a global scale that revealed their “high political and economic importance” to those who “opened up” much of Canada’s territories, rather than to the nation-state’s role in opening up the continent.[ 26]

Two sleds on a country road, Canada, c. 1835-1848. The image includes a variety of fur throws and clothing, including pelts from animals not native to Canada.

Rich’s other work gets to the heart of the formalist-substantivist debate that has dominated, or some have believed clouded, the field. Historians such as Harold Innis had long taken the formalist position, particularly in Canadian history, believing that neoclassical economic principles affected non-Western societies as much as Western ones.[27] Beginning in the 1950s, however, substantivists such as Karl Polanyi challenged these ideas, arguing instead that primitive societies could embrace alternatives to traditional western market trade; namely gift trade and administered trade. Rich took up these arguments in an influential article in which he claimed that Indians had “a persistent reluctance to accept European ideas or the core values ​​of the European approach” and that “English economic rules did not apply to Indian trade.”[28] Indians were savvy traders, but they had a fundamentally different idea of ​​ownership, which confused their European trading partners. Abraham Rotstein then explicitly fitted these arguments into Polanyi’s theoretical framework, claiming that “trade was administered on the Bay and market trade operated in London”.[29]

Arthur J. Ray fundamentally changed the direction of economic studies of the fur trade with two influential works that presented a modified formalist position between the extremes of Innis and Rotstein. “This system of trade,” Ray explained, “is impossible to call ‘gift trade,’ ‘managed trade,’ or ‘market trade,’ as it embodies elements of all of these forms.”[30] Native Americans engaged in trade for a variety of reasons. To reduce them to simple economic or cultural dichotomies, as the formalists and substantivists had done, was a useless simplification that obscured more than revealed. In addition, Ray used trading accounts and ledgers in the Hudson’s Bay Company archives for masterful qualitative analysis, pushing the boundaries of the methodology in the field. Echoing Ray’s position, Bruce M. White also helped paint a more nuanced picture of the complex ways in which native populations insert new economic relationships into existing cultural patterns.

Richard White, while acknowledging that the debate between formalists and substantivist was “old and now weary”, attempted to revive the substantivist position. Echoing Ray’s moderate position, which cautioned against simple simplifications, White made a simple argument against formalism: “Life was no business, and such simplifications only distort the past.” White instead argued that the fur trade was part of a “middle ground” in which Europeans and Indians were trying to accommodate their cultural differences. In the case of the fur trade, this meant that the French were forced to learn from the political and cultural meanings that the Indians gave to the fur trade. Cooperation, not dominance, prevailed.

Currently

According to the Fur Institute of Canada, there are approximately 60,000 active trappers (based on fishing licenses) in Canada, of whom approximately 25,000 are indigenous people.[34] The fur industry is present in many parts of Canada.[35] Der größte Produzent von Nerzen und Füchsen ist Nova Scotia, das 2012 Einnahmen von fast 150 Millionen US-Dollar erzielte und ein Viertel der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Produktion in der Provinz ausmachte.[36]

Handel mit maritimen Pelzen

Die Nordwestküste während der Ära des maritimen Pelzhandels, etwa 1790 bis 1840

Der maritime Pelzhandel war ein schiffsbasiertes Pelzhandelssystem, das sich darauf konzentrierte, Pelze von Seeottern und anderen Tieren von den Ureinwohnern der pazifischen Nordwestküste und den Ureinwohnern Alaskas zu erwerben. Die Pelze wurden hauptsächlich in China gegen Tee, Seide, Porzellan und andere chinesische Waren gehandelt, die dann in Europa und den Vereinigten Staaten verkauft wurden. Der Seepelzhandel wurde von den Russen entwickelt, die östlich von Kamtschatka entlang der Aleuten bis zur Südküste Alaskas vordrangen. Briten und Amerikaner traten in den 1780er Jahren ein und konzentrierten sich auf die heutige Küste von British Columbia. Der Handel boomte um die Wende zum 19. Jahrhundert. In den 1810er Jahren begann eine lange Zeit des Niedergangs. Als die Seeotterpopulation erschöpft war, diversifizierte und veränderte sich der maritime Pelzhandel, wobei neue Märkte und Waren erschlossen wurden, während er sich weiterhin auf die Nordwestküste und China konzentrierte. Es dauerte bis Mitte bis Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Die Russen kontrollierten während der gesamten Ära den größten Teil der Küste des heutigen Alaska. An der Küste südlich von Alaska herrschte ein heftiger Wettbewerb zwischen britischen und amerikanischen Handelsschiffen. Die Briten waren die ersten, die im südlichen Sektor operierten, konnten sich aber nicht gegen die Amerikaner behaupten, die von den 1790er bis 1830er Jahren dominierten. Die britische Hudson’s Bay Company trat in den 1820er Jahren in den Küstenhandel ein, um die Amerikaner zu vertreiben. Dies wurde um 1840 erreicht. In seiner Spätzeit wurde der Seepelzhandel hauptsächlich von der British Hudson’s Bay Company und der Russian-American Company betrieben.

Die russischen Pelzhändler aus Alaska gründeten 1812 ihre größte Siedlung in Kalifornien, Fort Ross

Der Begriff “maritimer Pelzhandel” wurde von Historikern geprägt, um den küstennahen, schiffsbasierten Pelzhandel vom kontinentalen, landbasierten Pelzhandel beispielsweise der North West Company und der American Fur Company zu unterscheiden. Historisch war der maritime Pelzhandel nicht unter diesem Namen bekannt, sondern wurde meist als „Nordwestküstenhandel“ oder „Nordwesthandel“ bezeichnet. Der Begriff „North West“ wurde selten als Einzelwort „Northwest“ geschrieben, wie es heute üblich ist.[37]

Der maritime Pelzhandel brachte die pazifische Nordwestküste in ein riesiges neues internationales Handelsnetzwerk, das sich auf den Nordpazifik konzentriert, von globaler Reichweite ist und auf Kapitalismus, aber größtenteils nicht auf Kolonialismus basiert. Es entstand ein dreieckiges Handelsnetz, das die pazifische Nordwestküste, China, die Hawaii-Inseln (die erst kürzlich von der westlichen Welt entdeckt wurden), Europa und die Vereinigten Staaten (insbesondere Neuengland) verband. Der Handel hatte große Auswirkungen auf die Ureinwohner der pazifischen Nordwestküste, insbesondere auf die Völker der Aleuten, Tlingit, Haida, Nuu-chah-nulth und Chinook. Es gab eine schnelle Zunahme des Reichtums unter den Eingeborenen der Nordwestküste, zusammen mit zunehmender Kriegsführung, Potlatching, Sklaverei, Entvölkerung aufgrund von Epidemien und einer erhöhten Bedeutung von Totems und traditionellen Adelswappen. Die indigene Kultur wurde jedoch nicht überwältigt, sondern blühte auf, während sie sich gleichzeitig schnell veränderte. The use of Chinook Jargon arose during the maritime fur trading era and remains a distinctive aspect of Pacific Northwest culture. Native Hawaiian society was similarly affected by the sudden influx of Western wealth and technology, as well as epidemic diseases. The trade’s effect on China and Europe was minimal. For New England, the maritime fur trade and the significant profits it made helped revitalize the region, contributing to the transformation of New England from an agrarian to an industrial society. The wealth generated by the maritime fur trade was invested in industrial development, especially textile manufacturing. The New England textile industry in turn had a large effect on slavery in the United States, increasing the demand for cotton and helping make possible the rapid expansion of the cotton plantation system across the Deep South.[39]

The most profitable furs were those of sea otters, especially the northern sea otter, Enhydra lutris kenyoni, which inhabited the coastal waters between the Columbia River to the south and Cook Inlet to the north. The fur of the Californian southern sea otter, E. l. nereis, was less highly prized and thus less profitable. After the northern sea otter was hunted to local extinction, maritime fur traders shifted to California until the southern sea otter was likewise nearly extinct.[40] The British and American maritime fur traders took their furs to the Chinese port of Guangzhou (Canton), where they worked within the established Canton System. Furs from Russian America were mostly sold to China via the Mongolian trading town of Kyakhta, which had been opened to Russian trade by the 1727 Treaty of Kyakhta.[41]

See also

bibliography

General surveys

Biographies

Berry, Don. A Majority of Scoundrels: An Informal History of the Rocky Mountain Fur Company. New York: Harper, 1961.

New York: Harper, 1961. Hafen, LeRoy, ed. The Mountain Men and the Fur Trade of the Far West. 10 vols. Glendale, California: A.H. Clark Co., 1965–72.

10 vols. Glendale, California: A.H. Clark Co., 1965–72. Lavender, David. Bent’s Fort. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954.

Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1954. Lavender, David. The Fist in the Wilderness. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.

Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Oglesby, Richard. Manuel Lisa and the Opening of the Missouri Fur Trade. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963.

Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963. Utley, Robert. A Life Wild and Perilous: Mountain Men and the Paths to the Pacific. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997.

Economic studies

Allaire, Bernard. Pelleteries, manchons et chapeaux de castor: les fourrures nord-américaines à Paris 1500–1632 , Québec, Éditions du Septentrion, 1999, 295 p. ( ISBN 978-2840501619)

, Québec, Éditions du Septentrion, 1999, 295 p. ( ISBN 978-2840501619) Bychkov, Oleg V.; Jacobs, Mina A. (1994). “Russian Hunters in Eastern Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: Lifestyle and Economy” (PDF) . Arctic Anthropology . University of Wisconsin Press. 31 (1): 72–85. JSTOR 40316350.

Black, Lydia. Russians in Alaska, 1732–1867 (2004)

(2004) Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.

New York: Hill and Wang, 1983. Gibson, James R. Otter Skins, Boston Ships, and China Goods: The Maritime Fur Trade of the Northwest Coast, 1785–1841. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992.

Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1992. Ray, Arthur J. The Canadian fur trade in the industrial age (1990)

(1990) Ray, Arthur J., and Donald B. Freeman. “Give Us Good Measure”: An Economic Analysis of Relations between the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Company Before 1763. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978. Rotstein, Abraham. “Karl Polanyi’s Concept of Non-Market Trade.” The Journal of Economic History 30:1 (Mar., 1970): 117–126.

30:1 (Mar., 1970): 117–126. Vinkovetsky, Ilya. Russian America: an overseas colony of a continental empire, 1804–1867 (2011)

(2011) White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. White, Richard. The Roots of Dependency: Subsistence, Environment, and Social Change Among the Choctaws, Pawnees, and Navajos. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.

Social histories: Native Americans

Brown, Jennifer S.H. and Elizabeth Vibert, eds. Reading Beyond Words: Contexts for Native History. Peterborough, Ontario; Orchard Park, N.Y.: Broadview Press, 1996.

Peterborough, Ontario; Orchard Park, N.Y.: Broadview Press, 1996. Francis, Daniel and Toby Morantz. Partners in Furs: A History of the Fur Trade in Eastern James Bay, 1600–1870. Kingston; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1983.

Kingston; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1983. Holm, Bill and Thomas Vaughan, eds. Soft Gold: The Fur Trade & Cultural Exchange on the Northwest Coast of America. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press, 1990.

Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press, 1990. Krech, Shepard III. The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.

New York; London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. Krech, Shepard III, ed. Indians, Animals, and the Fur Trade: A Critique of Keepers of the Game. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981.

Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981. Martin, Calvin. Keepers of the Game: Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade . Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1978.

. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1978. Malloy, Mary. Souvenirs of the Fur Trade: Northwest Coast Indian Art and Artifacts Collected by American Mariners, 1788–1844 . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum Press, 2000.

. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum Press, 2000. Ray, Arthur J. Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunters, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660–1870. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 1974.

Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 1974. Vibert, Elizabeth. Trader’s Tales: Narratives of Cultural Encounters in the Columbia Plateau, 1807–1846. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997.

Social histories: women, Métis, voyageurs

Brown, Jennifer S.H. Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country. Vancouver; London: University of British Columbia Press, 1980.

Vancouver; London: University of British Columbia Press, 1980. Brown, Jennifer S.H. and Jacqueline Peterson, eds. The New Peoples: Being and Becoming Métis in North America. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1985.

Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1985. Giraud, Marcel. The Métis in the Canadian West. Translated by George Woodcock. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press, 1986.

Translated by George Woodcock. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press, 1986. Gitlin, Jay. The Bourgeois Frontier: French Towns, French Traders & American Expansion , Yale University Press, 2010

, Yale University Press, 2010 Nicks, John. “Orkneymen in the HBC, 1780–1821.” In Old Trails and New Directions: Papers of the Third North American Fur Trade Conference . Edited by Carol M. Judd and Arthur J. Ray, 102–26. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980.

. Edited by Carol M. Judd and Arthur J. Ray, 102–26. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980. Podruchny, Carolyn. Making the Voyageur World: Travelers and Traders in the North American Fur Trade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006. Podruchny, Carolyn. “Werewolves and Windigos: Narratives of Cannibal Monsters in French-Canadian Voyageur Oral Tradition.” Ethnohistory 51:4 (2004): 677–700.

51:4 (2004): 677–700. Sleeper-Smith, Susan. Indian Women and French Men: Rethinking Cultural Encounter in the Western Great Lakes. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001.

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001. Van Kirk, Sylvia. Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670–1870. Winnipeg: Watson & Dwywer, 1999.

Regional histories

Papers of the North American Fur Trade Conferences

The papers from the North American Fur Trade conferences, which are held approximately every five years, not only provide a wealth of articles on disparate aspects of the fur trade, but also can be taken together as a historiographical overview since 1965. They are listed chronologically below. The third conference, held in 1978, is of particular note; the ninth conference, which was held in St. Louis in 2006, has not yet published its papers.

Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Sam Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma (Myanmar) Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands (Keeling Islands) Colombia Comoros Congo Dem Republic of Congo Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Gre nada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Dem Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Man Island Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territories Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda St Barthelemy St Kitts and Nevis St Lucia St Martin St Pierr e and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Príncipe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Korea Spa in Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City State Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (USA) Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Beaver skins are often prepared “open and round” rather than “covered”. (Be sure to ask your buyer how he or she would like to prepare the skins.) The procedure is as follows.

Cut off the feet and tail.

Cut the fur on the belly side in a straight line from tail to lip.

Trim the fur away from the belly, one side at a time, backwards.

When you reach the legs, don’t slash them open. Pull them through and pull off the fur like you would turn a sock inside out. Be careful with the knife when peeling the skin around the legs, as the skin easily cuts in here.

Carefully skin the head. Cut off the ears close to the skull. skin around eyes and nose.

Flesh the fur after skinning. The hide is then stretched onto a board to dry.

Use a large, flat board, e.g. B. a four foot piece of plywood.

Pin the skin to the board in a circle or oval. Use nails that are at least two inches long and spaced no more than an inch apart.

After the nails are in place, lift the skin off the surface of the board to the head of the nails. This allows airflow between the board and the skin.

Instead of boarding, the skin can be sewn onto a metal hoop frame. When sewn, space the stitches about an inch apart.

Whether drying the pelt on a board or frame, close the four leg holes with nails or stitches.