Which was a negative effect of the fur trade?

• A. Indigenous groups gained full autonomy
• B. First Nations became dependent on European goods
• C. Beavers overpopulated the land
• D. All conflicts disappeared

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that the fur trade often created dependence on European goods for Indigenous communities. As groups traded beaver pelts for items like metal tools, firearms, textiles, and other manufactured goods, they became more reliant on outsiders to supply everyday needs and special items. This reliance could shift power and decision-making away from traditional ways, because access to desired trade goods could influence choices about hunting, land use, and alliances. In effect, what started as a beneficial exchange slowly tied communities to European traders, limiting their autonomy and changing their economic and social dynamics.

That’s why the option about First Nations becoming dependent on European goods is the best answer. It captures the negative consequence of the fur trade—diminished self-sufficiency and increased external influence.

The other statements don’t fit. The fur trade did not typically increase autonomy; it often tied communities more closely to outsiders. Beavers were generally hunted extensively for pelts, so the idea of beaver overpopulation doesn’t align with the historical impact. And conflicts did not disappear; in fact, competition over resources and access to trade could provoke or worsen tensions.