They say the only thing constant in life is change. Things change all the time, and if you stop and look back over several decades, it can be pretty surprising to see how much things have changed. In this article, Walter Arnold is looking back on his younger years as a hunter and trapper, and is fascinated by how much has changed over that time. I can’t help but wonder what Walt would think if he were around today. Compared to the modern technological age, the internet, and the speed at which trapping information and communication is shared today, the 1950’s seems like the Stone Age. Imagine what the next 50-100 years will bring! Note: This is an excerpt from the larger article published in two issues of Fur-Fish-Game.
Then and Now
First Published in Fur-Fish-Game September 1956
Walter Arnold
Back in the fall, I was rummaging through a box of old papers and other accumulations and came across a picture of myself taken many years ago. While I was looking at the picture, many memories came drifting back from the experiences of my younger days, and it occurred to me how unfortunate it is that when some of us go through our early teens we do not realize how carefree and well off we are. Any worries we have are usually of little importance even if we do think they are serious matters at the time. I got to thinking about the many changes there have been during my life – yes, even since that picture was taken. There have been so many I hardly know where to begin.
Let us start with the rifle in my hands. As far back as my memory goes there were always guns of some sort around camp. Dad started lumbering when I was very small, and the lumber camp was our home. Some years we lived there the year around. My first memory of guns were muzzle loaders, (both muskets and flintlocks), a .22 single shot, and Dad’s old .44-40 Winchester ’73 model. We children were brought up to realize those guns were always loaded, and they were loaded, too. We grew up knowing that any gun we saw any place was loaded, and we had no home shooting accidents. Even to this day if I were to take a new gun from the factory out of its shipping case, that gun would be loaded as far as I was concerned until I found it otherwise.
Many parents back in those days brought up their children the same way, and I am sure there was not as large a percentage of home shooting accidents as we have today. Of course there is another factor that enters into this. Back in those days parents were not opposed to teaching children to obey. There were few homes where a four or five year old youngster was allowed to take over and run the affairs of the family. Some may wonder why so many parents raised their children, years ago, with loaded guns in the house. The answer is probably this. Any of us who can remember back to the turn of the century knows that our parents came from the age of the muzzle loaders, and because it was no simple matter to unload a gun every time it was brought into the house or camp, it was sort of a ‘must’ to teach children to look upon all guns as being loaded. Of course our parents came into the age of rifle cartridges that could be taken out of the gun with ease, but I think it was a case of their sticking to the old methods and habits they had been brought up with that made them bring many of us small fry up the same way. Whether it was right or wrong, I am most thankful that I was brought up with complete respect for firearms of any kind. My dad was a fine teacher in that respect.
I have strayed far from my subject and will now get back to that rifle in the picture. For a couple or three years it had been my ambition to have a rifle made up to my liking. This particular year I had gone to work at a lumber camp and was receiving the big pay of $26 a month plus board. Dad was not through lumbering. That was good pay for a boy in his early teens, but it was boom times. I went to work in the middle of September, and told the boss when I started that I would work only to the middle of October, as I now had my own trapping camp, and intended to hunt and trap during the fall and winter.
In our small town there was what you might call a trading post. It was a general store where you could go in and buy or order almost anything you wanted, such as groceries, hardware, hunting, fishing and trapping supplies, footwear, work clothing, and other items. I went to the owner and asked him if he would have a gun made up for me at the factory and also stake me out with more traps, food, footwear and other necessities for the fall and winter by the 15th of October. He was informed that he would have to wait for most of his pay until I got to trapping and selling furs. He agreed, and wrote down the description of the rifle I wanted. It would have to be made up at the Winchester factory. It would be a .44-40 caliber, 92 model, pistol grip with checkered grip and forearm, and have a half round and have octagonal nickel steel barrel. Such a barrel was not common in that caliber at the time, but to use the new high velocity ammunition with metal patch bullets now being made for it, it was necessary.
In due time the rifle arrived, and I was one proud young man. Made up to order at the factory, it cost me between $12 and $13. I just wonder what the cost would be today to have a factory job as revolutionary in design as that rifle was then. Some difference between then and now!
I am not positive, but somehow it is set in my mind that before I purchased the new rifle we used to obtain the .44-40 black powder cartridges in boxes of 50 for $0.65. when this caliber came out in high velocity, I think the price was about $1.25 per box of 50 for these high power shells.
Since the early days of the century, there has been a great advancement made in the dispersion of trapping information. This includes trapping methods, how to make lures, where to buy them, the proper type of traps to use for various furbearers, where traps can be purchased, and complete information on all other trapping equipment and supplies. The younger trappers of today simply cannot realize or appreciate the service they find available to them because they found it this way when they were born. Do not allow anyone to kid you. Fifty years ago it was a far different setup. Many a young fellow back in those days spent an entire fall and winter for just his keep for the privilege of working with an experienced trapper and learning how to trap. Everything was not being literally thrown into their laps. They were forced to work and dig for their information.
Probably the most important factor involved in speeding up the distribution of trapping information into every little settlement was the inauguration of the Parcel Post Service back in 1912. This sped up and made more convenient the delivery of mail order merchandise to every hamlet in the nation. Gradually more companies went after this trade. More and more the trappers began hearing from far away raw fur dealers and supply houses. By 1925, many a trapper living far back in the country would receive in one day, during the trapping season, half a mail box full of fur price lists, supply catalogues, free trapping tips and what not. There was a continual flow of this material all through the season, and from it trappers learned a great deal about many matters.
To start with, let us consider fox trapping. Back when I was in short pants we would hear now and then of someone, someplace, taking many fox, and we would hear he had a method of taking them in the water. During my first years of trapping as a boy I paid no attention to fox, as they really were not bringing in much money, and furthermore in the woods type of country I was in there were no many fox to be found, so they did not interest me. However, the time came when fox did advance in price, and there seemed to be more around than usual, so I became interested in trapping them. I finally traded a gold watch chain for a set of fox trapping methods that sold for $5.00. Today any young trapper can obtain information from catalogues or in other ways without cost – information on all types of sets for fox, and sets that reliably take fox.
Let me tell you what I got out of a $5.00 method when I was a kid in my early teens. I obtained a sheet of paper which was probably six inches wide and ten inches long, and on just one side of that, printed in heavy type, was the method. I had the water set for fox. It was so short that it would not lengthen this article but a few lines to print it if I could find it. It is still around somewhere, but I cannot locate it. The method was what that man claimed to know about fox trapping. With any experience now, I can say that of all the misinformation one could obtain, I had it.
Despite such misinformation, I was smart enough to get the principle that if one traveled in water to a certain point and placed a trap close to shore with a sod on the pan and a bait out beyond another sod, a fox would smell no human odor and would go for the bait. This method said that it should be in a spring, and that the bait should be 18 inches from the shore, and that the shore should be level ground. All I could find were three places that would come anywhere close to that description, and thank God in none of those could I get bait sod 18 inches from the shore without having it at least a foot from the other shore. I took two fox and two or three mink in those three sets that fall. It was quite a few years before I got all the kinks ironed out of that set. Today a young trapper could learn all about the set in a very few days, or perhaps hours. Of course he would need to practice, but at least he would know what he was supposed to do.
In order that the reader may understand more fully what I mean by the dispersion of trapping information, I will use some figures that I have available. When I first started to trap, I believe the old Hunter Trader Trapper was about the only magazine which was devoting man of its pages to trapping activities, and that was by no means reaching into every trapping section of the country. For instance, I think it was early in 1914 before either my dad or I ever saw a copy. No one in our town was taking it. A friend from another town, 25 miles away, gave us the first copy we saw and we immediately subscribed to it. I still have a very few of the first copies we received. In the 1915 November issue of H.T.T. there was a total of 21 advertisements under the heading of “Trappers” and “Baits and Scents” in the classified ad department. Only 13 of these mention baits and scents or trapping methods. Mind you, this was as late as 1915 and H.T.T. had but few, if any, competitors at that time.
Today, Fur Fish Game is just one of the many publications that allots many pages to trapping. These various magazines run from pocket size to regular size magazines. I believe that Fur Fish Game is the leader in this field, and in its classified ad department of the 1955 November issue, under the head of “Trappers” will be found 75 ads. I make it 61 that are offering baits and scents or trapping methods. Some offer both. Remember, this is just one of many publications. There probably isn’t a town in the nation where trapping is carried on but has anywhere from one two fifty issues a month of trapper publications coming into it. Today there is no reason why any grammar school boy cannot obtain all the reliable trapping methods he desires, as even right here in Fur Fish Game will be found the places where one may purchase methods for the trapping of nearly any North American furbearer. I realize that now and then we hear someone remark “The methods we buy are no good.” In recent years I have seen a great many of the trapping methods that have been on the market, and I have never seen a book yet that I did not consider well worth every penny asked for it. I sure would have liked to have had some of them back when I was a kid. Anyone who can complain about trapping books and methods of today should have been back with me in my early days and obtained a copy of the $5.00 water set.
Just to make sure I am not misunderstood, I want to say that I do not mean there were not good trappers many years ago. There were smart trappers then, and they made good money with their traps, snares, and deadfalls. They had learned the long, hard way. As a rule they were not passing out their information to anyone. I do think, however, that owing to the keen competition which developed as the number of trappers multiplied during the past half century, and with the animals becoming wiser, sets have been developed for some furbearers that are far more effective than some of the methods used many years ago. Competition was what forced the professional trappers to rely more upon their heads and to figure out surer and faster ways of putting pelts on to the stretching board.
If a boy today who had never seen a trappers’ magazine or a catalogue from one of the many trapper supply houses desired information on the subject, all he would have to do would be to ask the first trapper he met. He would probably be told then and there of a dozen different places, and also magazines to subscribe to. For a small amount of money he could have, in a few weeks, a desk full of catalogues, free trapping tips, trapping methods he had bought, and the whole works. He would even know where to send in orders to purchase most every item he would desire to prepare any trapping lures he wished to make up himself.
When I was starting out it was not as easy as that. I caught fur, but it wasn’t until I got hold of our first copy of Hunter Trader Trapper and read it and got in contact with some of the advertisers that I got into real mink trapping. The first thing I obtained was a booklet from Funsten Bros. of St. Louis, MO, and back in those days they had a free catalogue in which there were mink sets described that we catch plenty of mink with today. But back in those days information was not being thrown at one from all directions.
In my part of the country the trappers were just breaking free from the last of the age of dead-fall trapping. Oh yes, there were steel traps and about everyone was using them, but I can remember now and then a trapper was still using at least a few dead-falls on his line. Now deadfalls were land sets and trappers as a rule were educated to land trapping for mink, and more than one old trapper who had turned wholly to steel traps was still making all mink sets on land.
For instance, just about the time I got to using a variety of water sets along with land sets, an old trapper started coming in from his old trapping grounds and working three or four miles of my line. Every mink set I ever saw of his was a handmade cubby or natural enclosure set. Never once did I see a trap of his in the water. He took mink too, but I am sure I took twice the number he did on that line as I had picked up the idea of water sets. Along with what I had read, I also used my head and worked out some good ones on my own.
Ever since the steel trap was made, I guess trappers have been taking fox in land sets, but I can remember back in the days when, in our section at least, no one was taking enough in land sets year after year to make it a worthwhile business. Then there came a time when a cousin of mine who was cooking at a lumber camp came out and I saw him. He knew that I did some fox trapping, but did not bother much with fox himself. He told me I should go up to camp and spend a night there and meet a man from Canada – New Brunswick if I remember correctly. Anyhow, this man had brought traps with him, and nights and mornings and Sundays he had put out fox sets and was bringing fox in right along, especially Sundays when he looked at all his traps. My cousin told me, “That fellow knows how to trap fox on land. Some of us have seen some of his sets. He digs a small hole in the ground like a squirrel hole and sets the trap there, and he is catching lots of fox.”
I never went up, and probably it is just as well, because most any trapper in those days that had figured out something a little better than the other fellow wasn’t telling how it was done. The trapper was around there only that fall. I never heard of him again. It seems like it was all of ten years later before I began to hear of a trapper here or there in some of the nearby towns who was making good catches with land sets. Then in the course of a couple or three years about every trapper who wished to learn the methods could do the same.
Back when I first got into trapping I do not believe there was a place on earth where a trapper could find a company that stocked under one roof and advertised for sale the bulk of the essential scent making materials that trappers have use for. It was a case of buying something from a drug store, getting an item or so from some other trapper, and gathering what material one could from his own trap line. It wasn’t until around 1920 or later that I started up what I claim was the first place where a trapper could send in and purchase the bulk of the essentials he required in making his lures. Soon after I started this business it occurred to me that other trappers like myself would be having a hard time of it in using whole mink or muskrat glands, or whole beaver castor in making up their lures. After some effort I was successful in having made up for me a big hand grinder to do this work. The secret of the grinder was that I had made up, along with regular plates, a fine hole plate with 1/60 of an inch holes. Before long I was producing properly preserved musk sacs and castors in paste form, which when mixed into lures could be used right down to the last drop. There are many doing this today, and there is no reason why they should not – it’s a free country. Less than forty years ago this service was not available to the trappers. What a change between then and now!
One of the first things I noticed when I came across an old picture was that all my furs were turned fur side out. What a change I have seen down through the years in this custom. Possibly the custom was not nationwide, but in going through some of my 1914-15 Hunter Trader Trapper magazines, I find pictures of fur catches. Some trappers turned all their furs, others did not. Our local fur buyers wanted most of the pelts fur side out so they could “see the fur”, as they expressed it. Even to this day the big joint in my right thumb is weak and easily thrown out, the cause being from turning heavy pelts such as otter, fisher and bobcat. Some of the fox and coon could be tough ones too. My toughest jobs were on otter. After removing the pelt from the board I would place a piece of cloth into hot water, wring the bulk of the water out, and then wrap the damp warm cloth around the head part of the pelt. The cloth was removed after a few minutes and I would pound the head part lightly with a hammer, then repeat the whole performance again and keep this up until I had that part of the pelt softened up enough so I could turn the head and neck down into the pelt. After this, the rest was easy.
I was forever leaving pelts on the boards too long. One reason was because in many instances the pelts would be drying out at home or a camp while I was away at some other place. One could save wear and tear on the thumb by removing the pelts while the head part was still quite soft, then turning the pelt and returning it to the board, fur side out, to allow for complete drying. This too had to be done about right, and thin shims inserted between the pelt and the board to prevent its adhering to the board and allow for faster drying. Really, there was not too much difference in the work as far as I could see. In most cases I had just about as soon dry them first and then turn them the “rough on the thumb” way. Turning all the pelts today would be considered not only a waste of time, but also a loss in the value of our catch.
Our family used to take fisher every year, sometimes several, with my dad getting most of them. I remember one time the buyer came up and we had a fisher that none of us had taken time to turn. When he came to the fisher pelt he looked at it and then eyed us with suspicion, and asked, “What’s the matter with that pelt?” Of course about all of our fisher pelts would have a black tail and the fur showing around the base of the pelt would be dark, but up inside it could be dark, gray, pale, or a brownish cast. Our buyers wanted to see the fur in those days.
It was the dark, fine mink that fetched top prices, and the buyer wanted to see that fur too, and examine the underfur. Our white weasel might look white from the outside, but up the back near the shoulders it could be a grayback and we never received more than a nickel for one of those. Otter could be, and in many cases were, singed, and that could happen in our locality during most any part of the season. Maybe just the tail would be singed, but most of the body part okay. The buyer wanted to see how it all looked.
The color of fur had a lot to do with the value of a fox pelt. We picked up now and then what we called a mongrel. The fur might be heavy, but it was strangely colored and usually brought less than the regular red. Of course a real Sampson fox could be recognized at a glance, pelt side out, and was not really worth skinning. I may be mistaken, but I believe that if our Maine red fox was averaging $8.00 to $10.00 today and buyers were running into bunches of them 15 to 100 pelts in a lot, they would still prefer to have them fur side out.
I do not remember ever hearing a buyer say that muskrat should be turned fur side out, but while we were at it we turned everything. I am sure that muskrat was the first thing we were finally told not to turn. I think it was about that time too when we were told not to turn our skunk. Down through the years the change came in mink, otter, weasel, bobcat, raccoon and others.
A few years ago I had the pleasure of visiting a raw fur merchant in New York who specialized in otter. Pelts were in piles here and there like cord wood. I saw one pile that I figured would scale a cord. That’s a lotta otta! I don’t think there was a pelt in the establishment that was fur side out. Yes, there have been many changes since then and now, and one thing that pleases me a great deal is that the big joint in my right thumb is quite well, thank you.