From Jedediah Smith to Kit Carson, fur trapping has been woven into California’s history for nearly 200 years. But state lawmakers in Sacramento are considering killing off the controversial industry for good.

A new bill introduced Thursday and backed by environmental and animal welfare groups would ban commercial fur trapping statewide, bringing to a close the practice of capturing grey foxes, mink, beaver and other wildlife, killing them and selling their pelts to make coats and other clothing.

“We have to look at ourselves and say ‘is this really necessary any more?'” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, the bill’s author. “There are a lot of things that are part of our history that we’ve done away with.”

In 2017, the most recent year for which there is state data, 133 people in California held commercial trapper’s licenses, according to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Of those, 68 trapped 1,568 animals that year, including grey foxes, coyotes, beavers, badgers and minks.

Supporters of the bill, AB 273, argue that killing the animals is cruel. They say it depletes important predators from local wildlife populations, and that the amount of money raised through the sale of trapping licenses — $15,544 in 2017 — doesn’t begin to cover the state’s costs.

“It’s an antiquated, ecologically destructive practice that doesn’t belong in 21st century California,” said Brendan Cummings, conservation director with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group backing the bill.

“Taking native wildlife out of their habitat and killing them for their fur no longer belongs in California,” he said. “It makes no sense economically, ecologically or ethically.”

But the commercial trappers, who once numbered more than 3,000 in the mid-1980s in California, say the push is the latest attempt by urban residents to chip away at hunting and trapping practices common in rural counties.

“The politicians are always listening to the fuzzy wuzzy animal rights activists,” said Reid Aiton, a 77-year-old trapper in Humboldt County who has been trapping animals since he was 8 years old. “They don’t trap. They don’t want you to trap. They don’t hunt, they don’t want you to hunt. This state is so out of whack.”

Aiton noted that in 1998, California voters banned steel-jaw and padded leg-hold traps when they approved Proposition 4, a statewide ballot measure.

“How can it be cruel?” he said. “All we can use now is cage traps. Nothing can be more humane than a cage trap. If you get a target animal, you humanely euthanize it. If you get a non-target animal you let it go.”

Animals trapped in cages don’t suffer because they are killed with one shot to the head, he said.

California would be the first state to to impose such a far-reaching ban on commercial trapping, if the bill passes. Aiton said that as the fur industry has reduced in size in the United States, the remaining trappers in California often sell to Russian and Chinese companies. He argued that the animals that are being trapped are common, like coyotes, and not endangered species.

“If you went to Wyoming or Montana or any of those states where they intelligently manage wildlife, they do protect species that need protecting, but they don’t protect species that don’t need protecting,” he said. “The animal rights movement here is insane. They are insane.”

The bill would not prohibit trapping animals that damage farms or property, like skunks living under private homes, coyotes killing chickens on farms or beavers building dams that cause flooding.

In a major blow to the trapping industry, animal welfare groups won a victory in 2015 when the state Fish and Game Commission banned trapping of bobcats. That move came after state lawmakers passed a bill three years earlier requiring the commission to prohibit bobcat trapping or raise license fees to cover the costs of administering the program. River otters and red foxes are also banned from trapping in California.

The groups supporting the latest bill tried to convince the commission to apply the same standard for all trapping, but it chose not to implement a wider ban so they headed to the Legislature.

Gonzalez, who serves as chairwoman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, said that the state shouldn’t be losing money subsidizing a dwindling industry. Her bill notes that in 2017, a total of 1,241 commercially trapped animals were reported sold, generating an estimated total of $4,531 for the trappers.

“I’m not too concerned about the displacement,” she said. “There’s not much left of the industry. I’m surprised we’re subsidizing it as a state.”

Gonzalez added that she doesn’t personally own fur and that there are many synthetic alternatives.

As a result of concerns about cruelty, in recent years, some major apparel brands have abandoned animal fur, including Burberry, Versace, Gucci, Michael Kors, Armani, Tom Ford, Stella McCartney, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein.

Aiton, who said his family dates back to the 1850s in California, is the state director of the National Trappers Association. He said his group will try to fight the bill, but doesn’t expect to make much difference.

“If you want my opinion, trapping in California is dead,” he said. “For all practical purposes, they have killed the industry.”